Joint Governance: Redefine the "Dual-Leadership System"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 9, 2008
Ma Ying-jeou will not be participating in the Dragon Boat races due to the floods in southern Taiwan. The Presidential Office spokesman's statement was amusing. Wang Yu-chi said: "President Ma, respects the constitutionally designated Head of State... The Premier is the highest ranking member of the Executive Yuan... Disaster relief and flood control is the authority of the Executive Yuan... President Ma and the Executive Yuan have taken all necessary steps, and will keep a close watch on the situation." But then Wang Yu-chi added: "If the disaster worsens, President Ma does not rule out visiting the countryside to survey the disaster."
Flooding from a tropical storm seems to have turned President Ma into a advocate and practitioner of the "semi-presidential, dual-leadership system." Ma Ying-jeou seems to think that disaster relief is part of the the Executive Yuan's flood control functions, and that the President must respect this fact. He seems to think that if the president interferes with Executive Yuan disaster relief, or even expresses concern for disaster victims, he will be perceived as trying to hog the media spotlight.
This may be a manifestation of President Ma's promise to "retreat to the second line after inauguration." It could be a manifestation of what he advocated in his inaugural address -- "a constitutional system in which authority corresponds with responsibility." But is this really the spirit of the so-called "dual-leadership system?" Apparently this "dual-leadership system" can't even survive a heavy rainfall.
Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian utterly destroyed the "Dual-leadership system" during their terms of office. During the Lee Teng-hui era even Liu Tai-ying could humiliate Premier Vincent Siew. During the Chen Shui-bian era, Chen fired six consecutive Premiers. Chen abused every one of them, leaving them dishonored and in disgrace. Lee and Chen encroached upon the Executive Yuan's authority even as they evaded the attendant responsibility. Lee and Chen meddled in the Executive Yuan's authority and demeaned the Premier's dignity. Ma Ying-jeou, conscious of this negative precedent, has "retreated to the second-line," and the premise that "powers and responsibilities must correspond." His intent is to respect the Premier and the Executive Yuan, to avoid stealing their thunder, and to avoid interfering with the Premier's leadership.
But if the "dual-leadership system" imprisons the Premier within the Legislative Yuan, if it prevents the President from offering his condolences to disaster victims for fear of exceeding his authority, this is a misunderstanding of the spirit and letter of the law.
Is our current constitution really akin to France's dual-leadership system," in which "executive power changes track?" According to the Republic of China Constitution, the President's powers and responsibilities are indeterminate. If the President's powers are narrowly defined, then he has the authority to determine only the overall direction of national defense, foreign affairs, and cross-strait policy. He lacks the authority even to nominate the Chairperson for the Mainland Affairs Council. If, on the other hand, the President's powers are broadly defined, then the Premier is nothing more than a Presidential appointee. For over a decade, in actual practice, the Head of the Executive Yuan has effectively become the President's chief executive. In any event, a "Dual-leadership system" must not lead us to the absurd conclusion that "the president may not comfort disaster victims."
The existing "dual-leadership system" lacks clear lines of demarcation. But if on the one hand it allows Chen Shui-bian to undermine six consecutive Premiers, and if on the other hand it makes Ma Ying-jeou hesitant to even inquire about the well-being of disaster victims, this hardly represents the original intent of the constitution. President Ma and Premier Liu must find a way to complement each other and administer jointly. Otherwise they will endlessly reenact the Chinese "Parable of the Father and Son Riding a Donkey." No matter who rides the donkey on the way to the market, someone is bound to criticize.
With direct presidential elections, the public has certain expectations of the president. This, coupled with unclear demarcations within the "dual-leadership system," make it difficult to distinguish between a front line and a second line. Suppose that during his election campaign, the President's views include a whole range of views on politics, education, and economics? Suppose he strongly supports "big tenant farmers, small landowners," a "negative income tax system," or "Twelve i-Taiwan Projects?" Now suppose that upon assuming office he suddenly announces that he is "retreating to the second-line?" and that "disaster relief is part of the Executive Yuan's flood control responsibilities?" What kind of self-contradictory form of "dual-leadership system" is that? If President Ma believes that upon taking office he has only the "three powers delegated to the President," then why not the allow Frank Hsieh to be president, and allow the "three powers" to limit the Executive Yuan? If President Ma feels the President should not interfere with the Executive Yuan, then why does he want the Executive Yuan to encroach on the President's "three powers," as expressed in his political platform? Furthermore, if disaster relief and flood prevention is "merely" part of the Executive Yuan's authority, then why did President Ma phone the Premier and the Chairman of the the Council of Agriculture expressing "concern" over the disaster? Such a "dual-leadership system" is self-contradictory, indefensible, and unsustainable.
Given the gap between the public's expectations and the system's defects, Ma Ying-jeou and Liu Chao-hsuan must re-define the "dual-leadership system." Predicated on mutual trust and the division of labor, they must complement each other and govern jointly. For example, in the event of a flood, if the Premier is preoccupied with other matters, the President should act as a buffer and console the public. It cannot be the the way it is now, where the Premier has no time to visit the countryside and the President declares that he does not dare interfere with the Executive Yuan. The solution is joint governance, with the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan both aware of the bigger picture and adopting a policy of "comprehensive governance, full responsibility." Therefore the President need not micromanage Executive Yuan policy via his political platform, and conversely Executive Yuan policy need not be constrained by the President's political platform.
The "dual-leadership system" is broken. It is the source of current constitutional chaos. Ma Ying-jeou and Liu Chao-hsuan must respect the rule of law. But they must also repair the holes in the legal system. They must dedicate themselves to mending the constitution. Only then can they properly promote the public welfare.
The "dual-leadership system" must not be misinterpreted. The "dual-leadership system" must not be a means of evading responsibility. The spirit and the letter of the law must not be misunderstood.
互補共治：重新詮釋「雙首長制」
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.09 03:07 am
馬英九總統因南部雨災取消了參與端午龍舟競賽。總統府發言人的一段陳述，頗堪玩味，王郁琦說：「馬總統是尊重憲政體制的國家元首……行政院長是最高行政首長，勘災防洪是行政院職權……馬總統知行政院已採必要措施，將保持相關的觀察。」但王郁琦又說：「未來若災情嚴重，馬總統也不排除下鄉勘災。」
一場雨災，似乎成了馬總統對「雙首長制」之認知與實踐的例證。馬英九似乎認為：勘災防洪是行政院的職權，總統必須加以尊重；勘災應由行政院主持，總統若出面，恐有藉慰問災民搶鏡頭的譏評。
這也許就是馬總統所說「就任後退到第二線」的實踐，也是他在就職演說所宣示的「權責相副的憲政體制」之體現。然而，這是否即是所謂「雙首長制」的精義？何況，這樣的「雙首長制」，如今看來竟連一場豪雨的考驗都經受不起。
在李登輝及陳水扁任內，「雙首長制」徹底破敗。李登輝時代，連劉泰英亦可羞辱閣揆蕭萬長；陳水扁時代，則六易閣揆，無一不是被陳水扁折磨得身敗名裂。李扁二人皆以對行政院爭功諉過為能事，不但干政亂政，也完全侵害了閣揆應有的尊嚴及光彩。馬英九面對前車之鑑，因而有「退到第二線」及「權責相副」的思考；其用意應是在尊重閣揆及行政院，小則勿搶了閣揆的光芒，大則勿干擾了閣揆執政的風格與節奏。
但是，現行的「雙首長制」如果竟然變成了把閣揆綁在立法院，而總統連慰問災民也恐有所踰越的制度；這種思維，已不僅是「法匠」心態，簡直更已形同「法奴」。
其實現行憲法豈是如法國那種「行政權換軌制」的「雙首長制」？根據我國憲法，總統權責迄今不明。若謂總統權小，則連「國防、外交、兩岸」皆只是決定「大政方針」而已，總統甚至對陸委會主委人選的建議權都於法無據；若謂總統權大，則行政院長既由總統任命，在十餘年來的實際憲政運作中，行政院長已經成為總統的執行長。但無論如何，「雙首長制」皆不可能演成「總統不宜勘災慰民」的結論。
現行「雙首長制」並無明確的法制界際，但若操作到如陳水扁毀了六任閣揆的地步，或如馬英九連勘災慰問亦表猶豫的地步，恐怕皆非憲政義理之體現。馬總統及劉揆必須設法探尋出一套「互補共治」之道，否則不時皆會演出父子騎驢的尷尬局面。
總統直選，民意對總統自有寄望；再加上「雙首長制」的法制界際不明，亦使總統與閣揆不易有「一線／二線」的區隔。試想：總統在競選時發表的政見，教育、經濟，無所不包，並大力主張「大佃農，小地主」、「負所得稅制」或「十二項愛台建設」等等；但就任後卻忽又宣布「退到第二線」、「勘災防洪是行政院職權」，這是何其矛盾錯亂的「雙首長制」？倘若馬總統認為，他就任後的職權僅在「總統三權」，則當初何妨選謝長廷當總統，以「三權」節制行政院即可；又倘若馬總統認為，總統不宜干預行政院，卻何以又要行政院執行其超越「總統三權」的競選政見？何況，倘若勘災防洪「只是」行政院的職權，馬總統又為何以電話向閣揆及農委會主委「關心」災情？這樣的「雙首長制」，根本自相矛盾，亦根本不能自圓其說，因此不可能行諸久遠。
在「民意期待」及「制度缺損」的憲政弔詭中，馬英九與劉兆玄應當重新詮釋「雙首長制」，在「相互信任」及「角色分工」的前提下，設法實現「互補共治」的效益。互補，例如水災，閣揆若被綁住，總統其實正可扮演安慰民情及吸收民怨的緩衝角色；而不可像現在這樣，閣揆無暇下鄉，總統宣稱不干預行政。共治，則是府院以全國大局著眼，不爭功諉過，共同承當起「完全執政，完全負責」的重責大任；因而，總統不必以「政見」綑綁行政院的「政策」，行政院亦不能讓「政策」被「政見」拘束。
現行憲法中殘破的「雙首長制」，原本即是憲政亂源。馬英九與劉兆玄除了關注法制的界際外，更應在殘破的法制中，以精誠合作來彌縫補罅，全力實現福國利民的執政職志。
不可曲解「雙首長制」，不可藉「雙首長制」來迴避責任；不可淪為「法匠」，尤其不可變成「法奴」。
Monday, June 9, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Green Card Crisis: Crisis Management? Or Management by Crisis?
The Green Card Crisis: Crisis Management? Or Management by Crisis?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 6, 2008
To say that the "Green Card Controversy" has undermined the image of the Liu Chao-hsuan cabinet is not quite correct. It would be more accurate to say that the Liu cabinet's crisis management abilities, or lack thereof, have undermined the image of the Liu cabinet.
Given today's political atmosphere, having a green card may make one a political target. But turning your opponents' green cards into a major political storm may not be so easy. 1. A green card after all, is merely a green card. It is not dual citizenship. 2. The law prohibits political appointees from having dual citizenship, but it does not prohibit them from having a green card. In other words, having a green card is not illegal. 3. The alleged green card holders forfeited their green cards when they failed to renew them, or on their own initiative relinquished them. For example, National Security Council Advisor Tsan Man-yung. 4. Even if one has dual citizenship, as long as one relinquishes one's foreign citizenship, one may still hold political office. If one relinquishes one's green card, one has already done more than what is legally required. 5. The Ma Ying-jeou green card controversy has already been resolved. The issues are already clear. It is unnecessary to go over the same ground again. The Liu cabinet's green card "crisis" is largely of the Liu cabinet's own making!
Central Personnel Administration records show that the former DPP government included 21 political appointees who had dual citizenship -- not merely green cards. These included Minister for Foreign Affairs Tien Hung-mao, Minister of Education Tseng Chi-lang, and Minister of Finance Ho Chi-ching. They each relinquished their foreign citizenship only after beginning their terms of office. Minister of Economic Affairs Christine Tsung, served little over a month. When she left office, she still hadn't relinquished her foreign citizenship. At Large TSU Legislator Liu Kuan-ping retained his Swiss citizenship throughout his entire term in the legislature. In February this year he was appointed representative to Switzerland. Only then did submit an application to relinquish his Swiss citizenship. As of now, he has still not completed the procedure. If the DPP government's political appointees can delay relinquishing their dual citizenship until after their inauguration, how dare they make an issue of Liu cabinet members' expired or relinquished green cards? The green card controversy is nothing but an artificial issue concocted by the DPP. The problem is not green cards. The problem is the Liu cabinet's inept response.
When Premier Liu was forming his cabinet, he surely must have inquired about dual citizenship and green cards. If he didn't, then he is responsible. If he did, but is still unprepared for his cabinet members' green card issues, if he sits passively and allows the controversy to reach a boiling point, then that is even more incomprehensible. Once Premier Liu was alerted to his cabinet's green card issue, at least two responses were available. 1. Don't wait for the opposition to leak information to the press. Seize the initiative and announce the information yourself, in advance. Let the public know that your cabinet members' green cards have expired or been relinquished. 2. Passively wait for an opportunity to respond. Immediately make known the results of your initial findings. Make known that your green cards have already expired or have been relinquished. If one does this, green cards may still become a political issue, but they probably won't become a political crisis. Alas, the Liu cabinet has adopted a strategy of evasion. As a result the situation is steadily deteriorating, with no end in sight. Liu cabinet members went so far as to say that "relinquishing one's green card is a sacrifice," "those who have green cards are talented individuals with an international perspective," and "One must not implement a Closed Door Policy." Such responses merely add fuel to the fire.
It is impossible to govern a nation without encountering crises. The question is whether the ruling party has the ability to deal with any such crises. Crises will inflict damage. They will test leaders' ability to control the situation. The Taiwan that the Ma administration took over is beset with internal and external problems. It is beseiged by crises. The tempest that has enveloped the Ma administration since it took office 20 days ago has raged unabated. This was unexpected. The tempest has not been about the larger issues, but about details. Even minor slips of the tongue have triggered uproars. For example, the Ma administration announced an increase in oil prices at 5:45 pm. It urged legislators not to wear suits in the Legislative Yuan. It prohibited Lee Chu-feng from visiting the mainland, then reversed itself. It cavalierly declaring that disaster relief and flood control is the Executive Yuan's responsibility. And last but not least, it bungled its response to the green card issue. Members of the Ma administration knew that sooner or later the issue would explode in their faces, yet they allowed the situation to deteriorate until it was unmanageable. The Ma administration seems incapable of preventing crises from arising. It also seems incapable of limiting their damage once they have arisen. The Ma administration is politically blind and tone-deaf.
Political leaders must be able to set the agenda. The Ma administration took office 20 days ago. Apart from cross-strait relations, it has been utterly passive and on the defensive. It has allowed itself to be attacked without making any effort to hit back. One cannot dismiss Ma administration ineptitude by arguing that the media and political opposition are being too harsh. Political leaders need to examine their ability to react to such matters. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a high-ranking official on Taiwan who hasn't had problems with either dual citizenships or green cards. The DPP allowed 21 political appointees to take office even though they had dual citizenships. Yet the DPP has the colossal effrontery to criticize the Ma administration? The Ma administration has been reduced to groveling. The KMT is fully aware of its own plight, and has only itself to blame.
The Ma administration must promptly extricate itself from the mess it is in. On the one hand it must exercise damage control. On the other hand it must seize the rhetorical initiative. It must reach peoples' hearts and minds. Once it allows the DPP to create a negative image of the Ma administration in the public imagination, it will be too late for regrets.
綠卡風暴：危機處理，還是被危機處理？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.11 02:58 am
與其說綠卡事件重創了劉內閣，不如說是劉內閣的「危機處理」重傷了自己。
在現今政治氛圍中，綠卡可能形成政治話題，卻未必能演成政治風暴。一、畢竟只是綠卡，而非雙重國籍。二、法律禁止政務官具有雙重國籍，但未禁止擁有綠卡；亦即，擁有綠卡並不違法。三、何況，據稱相關人等的綠卡皆已自然失效或已申請放棄，或正申請放棄（國安會諮詢委員詹滿容）。四、即使擁有雙重國籍，只要依法放棄，仍能任公職；則放棄綠卡者，已是「超標準」。五、經大選期間馬英九的綠卡事件及後續李慶安的雙重國籍事件，馬政府對綠卡的「危機」與「處理」應皆已有累積的因應能力，沒有重蹈覆轍的道理。依據以上理由，這次綠卡「危機」可謂大半是劉內閣自己「處理」出來的！
人事行政局的紀綠顯示，民進黨政府曾有二十一名政務官擁有雙重國籍（不是綠卡），包括外交部長田弘茂、教育部長曾志朗、財政部長何志欽等，均是在就職後始申請放棄；經濟部長宗才怡，則因任期僅一個多月，下任時還來不及放棄；另有台聯僑選立委劉寬平在立委任內全程擁有瑞士國籍，今年二月出任駐瑞士代表始申請放棄，但迄未完成手續。倘若民進黨政府的政務官，縱使有雙重國籍仍可待就職後放棄即可；則如今有何理由對並未違法且綠卡已失效或放棄者如此借題發揮？這場綠卡風暴，主因是緣於民進黨擅長製造「危機」，但劉內閣卻拙於「處理」。
劉揆在組閣時，理當詢明雙重國籍及綠卡事。若未詢明，責任在劉揆；若已詢明，並已知部分閣員有綠卡問題，卻竟似毫無準備，坐視風暴發展至今日地步，則尤其令人不解。劉揆在得知閣員有綠卡問題後，至少可有兩種因應方法。一、不待爆料，事先主動公布，並表示綠卡已經失效或放棄；二、等待被動時機出現時，在第一時間即完整公布已知的調查結果，並表示綠卡皆已失效或放棄。倘能如此，綠卡也許仍不免成為「話題」，但應不至於釀成「危機」或「風暴」。如今，劉內閣卻採「擠牙膏」的做法，遂使形勢愈陷愈深，找不到停損點。最後，甚至說「放棄綠卡是犧牲」、「有綠卡是有國際觀人才」、「不要鎖國」，這就更是投薪救火、火上加油了。
執政不可能沒有「危機」，考驗的是主政者「處理」的能力；危機必生「損害」，則考驗主政者「控制」的能力。馬政府接手的是內憂外患的台灣，自是「危機」四伏；然而，上任二十日竟是風波不斷，幾無寧日，卻是令人始料未及。何況，風暴皆未必是發生在事件主體，卻是在枝節處爆發，甚至只是幾句失言或口誤即引發軒然大波；如油品漲價在下午五時四十五分宣布、立法院要不要穿西裝、李炷烽登陸先禁後准，及輕率表示「勘災防洪是行政院職權」等等；而此次綠卡事件，更是應已明知早晚一定會爆發卻仍眼看著鬧到不可收拾。馬政府不能預防「危機」之發生於前，又不能控制「損害」之擴大於後，顯示這個團隊在政治運作能力上必有盲點及死角。
在今日情勢中，主政者必須具備的重要能力是引領議題；但馬政府上任二十日來，除兩岸題材確有領先，其餘議題則幾乎完全陷於被動及受攻擊的地位。這不能只說反對黨及媒體過於嚴厲，仍須檢討主政者的操作能力有無問題。其實，以台灣高層人才的生態言，政府組閣要不出現雙重國籍或綠卡問題堪謂幾無可能；但民進黨二十一名政務官皆帶著雙重國籍上任，如今卻可將馬政府綠卡罵到狗血淋頭、無以招架，即知國民黨陷此情境，實有其因應無方及自取其咎之處。
馬政府必須及時從亂局中抽身，一方面要處理危機與控制損害；另一方面更要全力創造正面的題材，引領國人的情感及認知；勿待社會負面的評價一旦形成，那就噬臍莫及了。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 6, 2008
To say that the "Green Card Controversy" has undermined the image of the Liu Chao-hsuan cabinet is not quite correct. It would be more accurate to say that the Liu cabinet's crisis management abilities, or lack thereof, have undermined the image of the Liu cabinet.
Given today's political atmosphere, having a green card may make one a political target. But turning your opponents' green cards into a major political storm may not be so easy. 1. A green card after all, is merely a green card. It is not dual citizenship. 2. The law prohibits political appointees from having dual citizenship, but it does not prohibit them from having a green card. In other words, having a green card is not illegal. 3. The alleged green card holders forfeited their green cards when they failed to renew them, or on their own initiative relinquished them. For example, National Security Council Advisor Tsan Man-yung. 4. Even if one has dual citizenship, as long as one relinquishes one's foreign citizenship, one may still hold political office. If one relinquishes one's green card, one has already done more than what is legally required. 5. The Ma Ying-jeou green card controversy has already been resolved. The issues are already clear. It is unnecessary to go over the same ground again. The Liu cabinet's green card "crisis" is largely of the Liu cabinet's own making!
Central Personnel Administration records show that the former DPP government included 21 political appointees who had dual citizenship -- not merely green cards. These included Minister for Foreign Affairs Tien Hung-mao, Minister of Education Tseng Chi-lang, and Minister of Finance Ho Chi-ching. They each relinquished their foreign citizenship only after beginning their terms of office. Minister of Economic Affairs Christine Tsung, served little over a month. When she left office, she still hadn't relinquished her foreign citizenship. At Large TSU Legislator Liu Kuan-ping retained his Swiss citizenship throughout his entire term in the legislature. In February this year he was appointed representative to Switzerland. Only then did submit an application to relinquish his Swiss citizenship. As of now, he has still not completed the procedure. If the DPP government's political appointees can delay relinquishing their dual citizenship until after their inauguration, how dare they make an issue of Liu cabinet members' expired or relinquished green cards? The green card controversy is nothing but an artificial issue concocted by the DPP. The problem is not green cards. The problem is the Liu cabinet's inept response.
When Premier Liu was forming his cabinet, he surely must have inquired about dual citizenship and green cards. If he didn't, then he is responsible. If he did, but is still unprepared for his cabinet members' green card issues, if he sits passively and allows the controversy to reach a boiling point, then that is even more incomprehensible. Once Premier Liu was alerted to his cabinet's green card issue, at least two responses were available. 1. Don't wait for the opposition to leak information to the press. Seize the initiative and announce the information yourself, in advance. Let the public know that your cabinet members' green cards have expired or been relinquished. 2. Passively wait for an opportunity to respond. Immediately make known the results of your initial findings. Make known that your green cards have already expired or have been relinquished. If one does this, green cards may still become a political issue, but they probably won't become a political crisis. Alas, the Liu cabinet has adopted a strategy of evasion. As a result the situation is steadily deteriorating, with no end in sight. Liu cabinet members went so far as to say that "relinquishing one's green card is a sacrifice," "those who have green cards are talented individuals with an international perspective," and "One must not implement a Closed Door Policy." Such responses merely add fuel to the fire.
It is impossible to govern a nation without encountering crises. The question is whether the ruling party has the ability to deal with any such crises. Crises will inflict damage. They will test leaders' ability to control the situation. The Taiwan that the Ma administration took over is beset with internal and external problems. It is beseiged by crises. The tempest that has enveloped the Ma administration since it took office 20 days ago has raged unabated. This was unexpected. The tempest has not been about the larger issues, but about details. Even minor slips of the tongue have triggered uproars. For example, the Ma administration announced an increase in oil prices at 5:45 pm. It urged legislators not to wear suits in the Legislative Yuan. It prohibited Lee Chu-feng from visiting the mainland, then reversed itself. It cavalierly declaring that disaster relief and flood control is the Executive Yuan's responsibility. And last but not least, it bungled its response to the green card issue. Members of the Ma administration knew that sooner or later the issue would explode in their faces, yet they allowed the situation to deteriorate until it was unmanageable. The Ma administration seems incapable of preventing crises from arising. It also seems incapable of limiting their damage once they have arisen. The Ma administration is politically blind and tone-deaf.
Political leaders must be able to set the agenda. The Ma administration took office 20 days ago. Apart from cross-strait relations, it has been utterly passive and on the defensive. It has allowed itself to be attacked without making any effort to hit back. One cannot dismiss Ma administration ineptitude by arguing that the media and political opposition are being too harsh. Political leaders need to examine their ability to react to such matters. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a high-ranking official on Taiwan who hasn't had problems with either dual citizenships or green cards. The DPP allowed 21 political appointees to take office even though they had dual citizenships. Yet the DPP has the colossal effrontery to criticize the Ma administration? The Ma administration has been reduced to groveling. The KMT is fully aware of its own plight, and has only itself to blame.
The Ma administration must promptly extricate itself from the mess it is in. On the one hand it must exercise damage control. On the other hand it must seize the rhetorical initiative. It must reach peoples' hearts and minds. Once it allows the DPP to create a negative image of the Ma administration in the public imagination, it will be too late for regrets.
綠卡風暴：危機處理，還是被危機處理？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.11 02:58 am
與其說綠卡事件重創了劉內閣，不如說是劉內閣的「危機處理」重傷了自己。
在現今政治氛圍中，綠卡可能形成政治話題，卻未必能演成政治風暴。一、畢竟只是綠卡，而非雙重國籍。二、法律禁止政務官具有雙重國籍，但未禁止擁有綠卡；亦即，擁有綠卡並不違法。三、何況，據稱相關人等的綠卡皆已自然失效或已申請放棄，或正申請放棄（國安會諮詢委員詹滿容）。四、即使擁有雙重國籍，只要依法放棄，仍能任公職；則放棄綠卡者，已是「超標準」。五、經大選期間馬英九的綠卡事件及後續李慶安的雙重國籍事件，馬政府對綠卡的「危機」與「處理」應皆已有累積的因應能力，沒有重蹈覆轍的道理。依據以上理由，這次綠卡「危機」可謂大半是劉內閣自己「處理」出來的！
人事行政局的紀綠顯示，民進黨政府曾有二十一名政務官擁有雙重國籍（不是綠卡），包括外交部長田弘茂、教育部長曾志朗、財政部長何志欽等，均是在就職後始申請放棄；經濟部長宗才怡，則因任期僅一個多月，下任時還來不及放棄；另有台聯僑選立委劉寬平在立委任內全程擁有瑞士國籍，今年二月出任駐瑞士代表始申請放棄，但迄未完成手續。倘若民進黨政府的政務官，縱使有雙重國籍仍可待就職後放棄即可；則如今有何理由對並未違法且綠卡已失效或放棄者如此借題發揮？這場綠卡風暴，主因是緣於民進黨擅長製造「危機」，但劉內閣卻拙於「處理」。
劉揆在組閣時，理當詢明雙重國籍及綠卡事。若未詢明，責任在劉揆；若已詢明，並已知部分閣員有綠卡問題，卻竟似毫無準備，坐視風暴發展至今日地步，則尤其令人不解。劉揆在得知閣員有綠卡問題後，至少可有兩種因應方法。一、不待爆料，事先主動公布，並表示綠卡已經失效或放棄；二、等待被動時機出現時，在第一時間即完整公布已知的調查結果，並表示綠卡皆已失效或放棄。倘能如此，綠卡也許仍不免成為「話題」，但應不至於釀成「危機」或「風暴」。如今，劉內閣卻採「擠牙膏」的做法，遂使形勢愈陷愈深，找不到停損點。最後，甚至說「放棄綠卡是犧牲」、「有綠卡是有國際觀人才」、「不要鎖國」，這就更是投薪救火、火上加油了。
執政不可能沒有「危機」，考驗的是主政者「處理」的能力；危機必生「損害」，則考驗主政者「控制」的能力。馬政府接手的是內憂外患的台灣，自是「危機」四伏；然而，上任二十日竟是風波不斷，幾無寧日，卻是令人始料未及。何況，風暴皆未必是發生在事件主體，卻是在枝節處爆發，甚至只是幾句失言或口誤即引發軒然大波；如油品漲價在下午五時四十五分宣布、立法院要不要穿西裝、李炷烽登陸先禁後准，及輕率表示「勘災防洪是行政院職權」等等；而此次綠卡事件，更是應已明知早晚一定會爆發卻仍眼看著鬧到不可收拾。馬政府不能預防「危機」之發生於前，又不能控制「損害」之擴大於後，顯示這個團隊在政治運作能力上必有盲點及死角。
在今日情勢中，主政者必須具備的重要能力是引領議題；但馬政府上任二十日來，除兩岸題材確有領先，其餘議題則幾乎完全陷於被動及受攻擊的地位。這不能只說反對黨及媒體過於嚴厲，仍須檢討主政者的操作能力有無問題。其實，以台灣高層人才的生態言，政府組閣要不出現雙重國籍或綠卡問題堪謂幾無可能；但民進黨二十一名政務官皆帶著雙重國籍上任，如今卻可將馬政府綠卡罵到狗血淋頭、無以招架，即知國民黨陷此情境，實有其因應無方及自取其咎之處。
馬政府必須及時從亂局中抽身，一方面要處理危機與控制損害；另一方面更要全力創造正面的題材，引領國人的情感及認知；勿待社會負面的評價一旦形成，那就噬臍莫及了。
Barak Obama: A Bigger than American Dream
Barak Obama: A Bigger than American Dream
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 6, 2008
Obama may be running for President of the United States, but he represents a dream that has implications far beyond America's borders.
If America can transcend the color barrier and elect a black man president, it will have completed one of the last tasks remaining following the founding of this constitutional republic over 200 years ago. [note: the editorial states "democracy," but strictly speaking the US is a republic] It will have transcended skin color. It will have transcended race. It will have realized the ideal that "all men are created equal." The fulfillment of this "American Dream" will be a inspiration and a model for nations of the world plagued by racial, color, religious, and linguistic conflicts.
Obama defeated the proud Hillary to win the Democratic nomination. Obama is like a water droplet. By refracting the surrounding world, the droplet becomes a brilliant crystal. Obama is a "political commodity" who reflects the dazzling possibilities of democracy by promising to break through the barrier of human prejudice. Some say his campaign committee turned his skin color into a successful selling point. It would be more accurate to say that a color-blind society is the missing piece of the American dream. Obama's emergence has inspired many people to demand the completion of this puzzle.
But Obama's advantage was not merely his skin color. It was his multi-ethnic background. His father of African descent, his white mother, his Indonesian stepfather, his childhood experience in Asia, and his middle name, "Hussein." All of these are integrated under Obama's coffee colored skin. For an increasingly multi-ethnic America, he holds a special attraction. Obama fought a six month long primary battle against the ambitious Clintons and the Democratic Party power structure, with its entrenched elites. He faced them down cooly and calmly. He created his own style. When sensitive issues arose he handled them deftly, demonstrating a sophistication beyond his rather thin resume.
In a very real sense, Obama's victory over Hillary reflects the American voter's disillusionment with the status quo ante in Washington. After Obama won the Iowa primaries, he made a moving speech. He said, "We are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America." "We have given people who never took part in the political process a reason to." "We knocked out those who use politics against their opponents, instead of for their country." He demanded bottom-up change, inspiring grass-roots voters and dispelling any doubts Washington politicians might have held about him. Party delegates had no choice but to follow the irresistible tide of public support for him.
More precisely, Obama's rise, represents voters' desire to change the system. Hillary represents traditional career politicians in Washington, cronyism, and vested interests. If Hillary is elected President, the Clinton and Bush families will together have set a new record by ruling the United States for over 20 years. This issue has not yet been brought to surface. But most Americans know perfectly well that when and elective democracy has turned into dynastic secession, something is seriously wrong. The people have become more and more alienated from politics. By contrast, Obama's youth, calm demeanor, humble background, multifaceted public image, have all become political assets. They have become the people's hope for change in Washington.
But the Obama legend also holds out a potential trap: deification. Voters are heavily invested in the notion that Obama is a candidate who has transcended race. They are too eager to believe the narrative accounting for his victory. The result is Obama has not been subjected to any real tests. Does he have the experience and qualifications to preside over a superpower? This is the question his opponents have been asking the most. Some people worry that if Obama is elected President, he will end up like Jimmy Carter, an outsider in Washington unable to penetrate Washington's inner workings. He might wind up achieving nothing. But others think that if someone as deficient in international understanding as Bush Junior can be president for eight years, Obama is unlikely to be any worse.
Elections has always been like this. At any point in time and space, people can never understand everything at once. They can only understand what matters to them the most. Today, during the early years of the 21st century, Americans are tired of the United States enacting the role of a loudmouthed and loutish global cop. They are tired of seeing the same old faces in Washington. In Barak Obama, they see a rapidly rising star. The American public wants its dream, a nation that has transcended racism. They want it because they know their nation still lives under its dark shadow.
Obama has a dream -- a nation that transcends "blue donkeys" and "red elephants." Obama knows that only by returning America to the American people, can this dream be fulfilled. The ROC has just transcended the Blue vs. Green divide. When we look at the dream Obama is attempting to achieve, our hearts must be filled with hope, and our intellects with understanding.
歐巴馬：一個比美國夢還大的想像
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.06 03:45 am
歐巴馬競選的雖是美國總統，但他身上所承載的夢想，其實要比美國的地平線深遠得多。
對美國而言，若能跨過「黑人出任總統」這巨大的一階，它才算完成了這個民主國家立憲兩百多年留下的最後任務，超越膚色，超越種族，實現了「人生而平等」的理想。而這個「美國夢」的完成，對世界其他仍然為族群、膚色、宗教、語言歧異所苦的國家，不僅是莫大的鼓舞，也有典範意義。
歐巴馬打敗氣焰高張的希拉蕊，贏得民主黨提名，就像一個小水珠經過完美的折射和意念的加持，變成了一顆閃亮的水晶。歐巴馬作為一件「政治商品」，能折射出這麼璀璨的民主想像，攻破了人性的藩籬，與其說是助選團隊將他的膚色成功變為行銷賣點，不如說是美國人民對於缺了一角的美國夢拼圖始終耿耿於懷；而歐巴馬的出現，引起許多人完成這個夢想拼圖的衝動。
但這並不是說歐巴馬的優勢只在他的膚色，或交會在他身上的多元種族色彩。的確，非裔的父親，白人的母親，印尼籍的繼父，童年在亞洲的生活經驗，稱為「海珊」的中間名，融合在歐巴馬咖啡色的皮膚下，對族群漸趨多元的美國人而言，自有其特殊魅力。但在半年激烈的初選纏鬥中，面對野心勃勃的柯林頓夫婦及民主黨內權勢結構的既存偏好，歐巴馬謹慎面對、從容因應，塑造了自己的風格。即使在一些敏感的議題上，他都處理得相當得體，顯示他的縱深和智慧皆超乎他的從政資歷。
在現實意義上，歐巴馬打敗希拉蕊，多少反映了美國選民對華府現有政治框架的批判。歐巴馬贏得愛荷華州初選時，曾發表了一篇動人的演說，他說，「我們不只是一幫紅、藍政黨的組合，我們是美國」，「我們給從未參加過政治的人一個參與的理由」，「我們擊垮那些用政治打擊對手、而非以政治提升國家的人」。他由下而上訴求「改變」，喚起基層選民，擊潰華府政客對他的懷疑，黨代表因而不得不跟隨無法抵擋的民意潮流轉而支持他。
更準確地說，歐巴馬的崛起，是選民求變的意志啟動了換軌的機制。希拉蕊代表的，是華府的傳統職業政治家，是政商關係深厚的既得利益階級；她若當選總統，柯林頓和布希兩家族合計將創下統治美國廿多年的紀錄。此議題雖未公開搬上檯面，但一般美國人深知，民主政治走到家族輪治，必然是一種病態，政治與人民的關係也越來越疏離。相形之下，此時歐巴馬的年輕、理性、資歷單純、形象多元，反而變成了一種優勢，成為人民期待華府氣象變革的寄望。
但歐巴馬的傳奇，也隱藏著一個「造神」的陷阱。正因為選民太過執迷於歐巴馬的「超種族」象徵，太過相信他勝出所寓涵的民主意義，歐巴馬所受檢驗便顯得太過簡化。其中，歐巴馬擔任超級強權總統的經驗和能力，是最受對手質疑的事。有人憂慮，若歐巴馬當上總統，可能像農夫總統卡特一樣變成無法適應華府的孤鳥，結果一事無成。但也有人認為，以小布希的國際觀都能擔任八年總統，歐巴馬的表現不致更差。
選舉向來如此，在時空的交錯中，人們無法一次抓住所有的東西，大家只能抓住自己最想要的。在廿一世紀初的當下，在厭煩了美國扮演粗聲粗氣的世界警察之後，在厭倦了華府那幫老面孔之後，看到一顆順勢竄起的新星，美國民眾希望一圓超越種族主義的夢想，因為他們知道自己的國家還活在這個巨大的陰影下。
歐巴馬的美國夢，是追求一個超越「藍驢子」和「紅大象」的國家；他也知道，唯有回到美國人民身上，才能完成這個超越。從剛剛跨過藍、綠藩籬的台灣看美國，對歐巴馬奇蹟的締造，除了樂觀期待，應該還有更多理解。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 6, 2008
Obama may be running for President of the United States, but he represents a dream that has implications far beyond America's borders.
If America can transcend the color barrier and elect a black man president, it will have completed one of the last tasks remaining following the founding of this constitutional republic over 200 years ago. [note: the editorial states "democracy," but strictly speaking the US is a republic] It will have transcended skin color. It will have transcended race. It will have realized the ideal that "all men are created equal." The fulfillment of this "American Dream" will be a inspiration and a model for nations of the world plagued by racial, color, religious, and linguistic conflicts.
Obama defeated the proud Hillary to win the Democratic nomination. Obama is like a water droplet. By refracting the surrounding world, the droplet becomes a brilliant crystal. Obama is a "political commodity" who reflects the dazzling possibilities of democracy by promising to break through the barrier of human prejudice. Some say his campaign committee turned his skin color into a successful selling point. It would be more accurate to say that a color-blind society is the missing piece of the American dream. Obama's emergence has inspired many people to demand the completion of this puzzle.
But Obama's advantage was not merely his skin color. It was his multi-ethnic background. His father of African descent, his white mother, his Indonesian stepfather, his childhood experience in Asia, and his middle name, "Hussein." All of these are integrated under Obama's coffee colored skin. For an increasingly multi-ethnic America, he holds a special attraction. Obama fought a six month long primary battle against the ambitious Clintons and the Democratic Party power structure, with its entrenched elites. He faced them down cooly and calmly. He created his own style. When sensitive issues arose he handled them deftly, demonstrating a sophistication beyond his rather thin resume.
In a very real sense, Obama's victory over Hillary reflects the American voter's disillusionment with the status quo ante in Washington. After Obama won the Iowa primaries, he made a moving speech. He said, "We are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America." "We have given people who never took part in the political process a reason to." "We knocked out those who use politics against their opponents, instead of for their country." He demanded bottom-up change, inspiring grass-roots voters and dispelling any doubts Washington politicians might have held about him. Party delegates had no choice but to follow the irresistible tide of public support for him.
More precisely, Obama's rise, represents voters' desire to change the system. Hillary represents traditional career politicians in Washington, cronyism, and vested interests. If Hillary is elected President, the Clinton and Bush families will together have set a new record by ruling the United States for over 20 years. This issue has not yet been brought to surface. But most Americans know perfectly well that when and elective democracy has turned into dynastic secession, something is seriously wrong. The people have become more and more alienated from politics. By contrast, Obama's youth, calm demeanor, humble background, multifaceted public image, have all become political assets. They have become the people's hope for change in Washington.
But the Obama legend also holds out a potential trap: deification. Voters are heavily invested in the notion that Obama is a candidate who has transcended race. They are too eager to believe the narrative accounting for his victory. The result is Obama has not been subjected to any real tests. Does he have the experience and qualifications to preside over a superpower? This is the question his opponents have been asking the most. Some people worry that if Obama is elected President, he will end up like Jimmy Carter, an outsider in Washington unable to penetrate Washington's inner workings. He might wind up achieving nothing. But others think that if someone as deficient in international understanding as Bush Junior can be president for eight years, Obama is unlikely to be any worse.
Elections has always been like this. At any point in time and space, people can never understand everything at once. They can only understand what matters to them the most. Today, during the early years of the 21st century, Americans are tired of the United States enacting the role of a loudmouthed and loutish global cop. They are tired of seeing the same old faces in Washington. In Barak Obama, they see a rapidly rising star. The American public wants its dream, a nation that has transcended racism. They want it because they know their nation still lives under its dark shadow.
Obama has a dream -- a nation that transcends "blue donkeys" and "red elephants." Obama knows that only by returning America to the American people, can this dream be fulfilled. The ROC has just transcended the Blue vs. Green divide. When we look at the dream Obama is attempting to achieve, our hearts must be filled with hope, and our intellects with understanding.
歐巴馬：一個比美國夢還大的想像
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.06 03:45 am
歐巴馬競選的雖是美國總統，但他身上所承載的夢想，其實要比美國的地平線深遠得多。
對美國而言，若能跨過「黑人出任總統」這巨大的一階，它才算完成了這個民主國家立憲兩百多年留下的最後任務，超越膚色，超越種族，實現了「人生而平等」的理想。而這個「美國夢」的完成，對世界其他仍然為族群、膚色、宗教、語言歧異所苦的國家，不僅是莫大的鼓舞，也有典範意義。
歐巴馬打敗氣焰高張的希拉蕊，贏得民主黨提名，就像一個小水珠經過完美的折射和意念的加持，變成了一顆閃亮的水晶。歐巴馬作為一件「政治商品」，能折射出這麼璀璨的民主想像，攻破了人性的藩籬，與其說是助選團隊將他的膚色成功變為行銷賣點，不如說是美國人民對於缺了一角的美國夢拼圖始終耿耿於懷；而歐巴馬的出現，引起許多人完成這個夢想拼圖的衝動。
但這並不是說歐巴馬的優勢只在他的膚色，或交會在他身上的多元種族色彩。的確，非裔的父親，白人的母親，印尼籍的繼父，童年在亞洲的生活經驗，稱為「海珊」的中間名，融合在歐巴馬咖啡色的皮膚下，對族群漸趨多元的美國人而言，自有其特殊魅力。但在半年激烈的初選纏鬥中，面對野心勃勃的柯林頓夫婦及民主黨內權勢結構的既存偏好，歐巴馬謹慎面對、從容因應，塑造了自己的風格。即使在一些敏感的議題上，他都處理得相當得體，顯示他的縱深和智慧皆超乎他的從政資歷。
在現實意義上，歐巴馬打敗希拉蕊，多少反映了美國選民對華府現有政治框架的批判。歐巴馬贏得愛荷華州初選時，曾發表了一篇動人的演說，他說，「我們不只是一幫紅、藍政黨的組合，我們是美國」，「我們給從未參加過政治的人一個參與的理由」，「我們擊垮那些用政治打擊對手、而非以政治提升國家的人」。他由下而上訴求「改變」，喚起基層選民，擊潰華府政客對他的懷疑，黨代表因而不得不跟隨無法抵擋的民意潮流轉而支持他。
更準確地說，歐巴馬的崛起，是選民求變的意志啟動了換軌的機制。希拉蕊代表的，是華府的傳統職業政治家，是政商關係深厚的既得利益階級；她若當選總統，柯林頓和布希兩家族合計將創下統治美國廿多年的紀錄。此議題雖未公開搬上檯面，但一般美國人深知，民主政治走到家族輪治，必然是一種病態，政治與人民的關係也越來越疏離。相形之下，此時歐巴馬的年輕、理性、資歷單純、形象多元，反而變成了一種優勢，成為人民期待華府氣象變革的寄望。
但歐巴馬的傳奇，也隱藏著一個「造神」的陷阱。正因為選民太過執迷於歐巴馬的「超種族」象徵，太過相信他勝出所寓涵的民主意義，歐巴馬所受檢驗便顯得太過簡化。其中，歐巴馬擔任超級強權總統的經驗和能力，是最受對手質疑的事。有人憂慮，若歐巴馬當上總統，可能像農夫總統卡特一樣變成無法適應華府的孤鳥，結果一事無成。但也有人認為，以小布希的國際觀都能擔任八年總統，歐巴馬的表現不致更差。
選舉向來如此，在時空的交錯中，人們無法一次抓住所有的東西，大家只能抓住自己最想要的。在廿一世紀初的當下，在厭煩了美國扮演粗聲粗氣的世界警察之後，在厭倦了華府那幫老面孔之後，看到一顆順勢竄起的新星，美國民眾希望一圓超越種族主義的夢想，因為他們知道自己的國家還活在這個巨大的陰影下。
歐巴馬的美國夢，是追求一個超越「藍驢子」和「紅大象」的國家；他也知道，唯有回到美國人民身上，才能完成這個超越。從剛剛跨過藍、綠藩籬的台灣看美國，對歐巴馬奇蹟的締造，除了樂觀期待，應該還有更多理解。
Thursday, June 5, 2008
World Environment Day: The Government Must Do More
World Environment Day: The Government Must Do More
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 5, 2008
Today is World Environment Day. The theme is "Kick the Habit! Towards a Low Carbon Economy." In the hope of creating an energy saving and carbon reduction trend,
President Ma will officially announce large-scale energy saving and carbon reduction measures. Taiwan's energy saving and carbon reduction campaign is not progressing, and may even be regressing. If the government merely mouths slogans, but fails to engage in self-introspection and reform, then a single day of slogan shouting is probably all we will get.
In 1972, the United Nations held its first Conference on the Human Environment in Sweden. It issued a Declaration on the Human Environment and an action plan. It held that human beings are capable pursuing economic development and improving the quality of life without sacrificing the environment. It named June 5 World Environment Day and resolved to hold meetings every year on that day. Each year it would actively promote a different environmental theme. This year's theme is "Kick the Habit! Towards a Low Carbon Economy."
This year's United Nations World Environment Day theme involves the concept of "kicking," as in "kicking an addiction." It underscores the need to reduce carbon emissions by kicking wasteful energy habits. It also conveys the notion that all that is necessary for energy reform is the will. Or as former US first lady Nancy Reagan put it: "Just say no." The United Nations suggested switching from cars to public transportion, turning off electrical appliances when they are not in use, and switching to energy-saving light bulbs. These are things people can easily do but have been too lazy to do. It urged people to kick their carbon dependency today.
World Environment Day activities encouraged the kicking of "carbon habits." Chief offenders are residential and commercial sectors and the transportation sector. On Taiwan these two sectors are responsible for up to 32% of all greenhouse gas emissions, second only to industry at about 53% of all emissions. These two categories of carbon emissions have rapidly risen in recent years. The government however, has failed to adopt the necessary and appropriate energy saving and carbon reduction measures. Even media promotion has been limited. If the government is serious about signing on to the World Environment Day "Kick the carbon habit" campaign, it should actively implement such policies, and attempt to achieve tangible results.
In recent years the government has favored the economy over the environment. The result has been a carbon reduction report card worse than many developing countries. A two-year investigation conducted by international organizations found that Taiwan's carbon dioxide emissions numbers increased faster than any other region on earth. This is not the kind of success one hopes to achieve.
The Kyoto Protocol was passed in late 1997, and enacted in February 2005. Developed countries and even developing countries not bound by the protocol began reducing carbon. Even the United States, which refused to sign the protocol, actively began reducing carbon. Only Taiwan did nothing. It used the excuse that it had been "rejected by the UN and orphaned by the international community" to rationalize its failure to reduce carbon. Not being subject to international sanctions, Taiwan's carbon reduction efforts came to nothing.
The residential and commercial sectors and the transportation sector are sectors that can be tackled immediately. In addition to media promotion, the government should provide greater financial and tax incentives. It should encourage people to use emissions-free vehicles, or promote energy-saving green building materials and green buildings. The United States encourages electric hybrid vehicles by providing substantial excise tax relief. The EU provides incentives for people who drive low emissions vehicles. What about Taiwan? The Chen regime long touted itself as green. But any time money was involved, it fell silent. Suddenly fuel-efficient cars, green building materials, and green buildings no longer mattered.
The Chen regime's conspicuous lack of concrete incentives tells us its campaigns to promote energy saving and carbon reduction were empty talk.
The second theme of World Environment Day is the "promotion of a low-carbon economy." It is also one of the key issues the government was most reluctant to confront, involving as it did changes to the industrial structure. Taiwan is almost totally dependent upon energy imports. It is developing high energy-consumption industries, especially export-oriented high energy-consumption industries without restraint. It spends a great deal of money importing energy. This energy generates large amounts of pollution and carbon emissions, but very little profit. In terms of industrial policy, it is totally unjustifiable. The Chen regime says that those industries responsible for generating 53% of Taiwan's greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for Taiwan's economic growth. But Taiwan's economic performance over the past several years prove that Taiwan has completely disregarded the reality of energy shortages and damage to the environment.
The government has virtually nothing to show for 10 years of promoting energy savings and carbon reduction. Officials are stuck in the slogan shouting phase. Even today they have yet to establish carbon emissions standards. Businesses and government agencies keep no carbon emission records. A lack of records means nothing can be verified or compared. Anyone can cite impressive numbers. But have they actually reduced carbon? Carbon emissions have increased, not diminished. Is the source of the problem not clear for all to see?
The United Nations has defined World Environment Day as an environmental festival. But on Taiwan, it must be more than a festival. It must be the beginning of a New Life Movement.
世界環境日：政府該有更積極的作為
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.05 02:58 am
今天是世界環境日，「推動低碳經濟與生活」是全球活動主題。馬總統將正式宣示推動大規模節能減碳措施，希望帶動節能減碳的風氣。不過，以台灣節能減碳進度之落後，甚至仍在持續惡化，若政府光是號召，不做更深刻層面的檢討調整，恐怕只是呼一天口號罷了。
一 九七二年，聯合國在瑞典召開首屆人類環境會議，發表「人類環境宣言」及行動計畫，認為人類有足夠能力在不犧牲環境品質的前提下追求經濟發展與生活品質的改 善；並將會議召開日六月五日定為每年世界環境日，每年選定一個年度主題積極推動。今年世界環境日的主題是「踢開碳習慣，推動低碳經濟與生活」。
聯 合國今年世界環境日主題，很俏皮且貼切的選用了Kick（踢）這個字；一方面描述出減碳工作的急迫性，表達了對耗能的舊生活習慣的憎惡；另一方面也顯示， 若要改正，只不過是舉腳一踢般地簡單，關鍵端看要不要做。聯合國並列舉少開車改用大眾運輸工具、電器不用時要關機而不是待機、改用節能燈泡等隨手可做但一 直懶得動手的生活惡習，呼籲大家今天一腳踢開。
世界環境日活動要踢開的「碳習慣」，民生的「住商」及「運輸」應是主要的兩塊。台灣這兩塊 溫室氣體排放合計高達百分之三十二，僅次於「產業」百分之五十三左右的排放量。應強調的是，這兩塊的碳排放近年還在快速上升，但政府始終不曾發起節能減 碳，甚至連宣導也做得有限。若認真響應世界環境日「踢開碳習慣」，在政府帶頭下求其落實，應能拿出相當不錯的成績單。
近年來政府重經濟而輕環境，以致減碳的成績即便與開發中國家相較也很難看；這兩年一些國際組織的調查，台灣二氧化碳排放量非但未減，且增長速度去年是全球第一，這個「成績」實在使國人顏面無光。
自 一九九七年底京都議定書通過，及二○○五年二月該議定書生效；不止已開發國家，初期未被公約列管的開發中國家也開始做減碳努力；甚至拒簽議定書的美國亦積 極減碳，只有台灣幾乎沒有動作，拿「被聯合國拒絕的國際社會孤兒」來合理化沒有減碳的理由，卻也因暫無國際制裁壓力，致推動減碳毫無成績。
「住 商」及「運輸」是可立即著手的兩塊，政府除了要積極宣導，更要提供財稅誘因。不管是鼓勵民眾使用無碳燃料車輛，或推動節能的綠建材及綠建築，一定要有財稅 誘因。美國鼓勵油電混合車，給予減免高額貨物稅；歐盟獎勵民眾換開清潔汽車，也有強力財稅誘因；但台灣呢？標榜綠色的扁政府只要一談到錢，不管是省油車， 或是綠建材、綠建築，一概靜悄悄；然而，沒有誘因，顯示政府推動節能減碳全是空話一句罷了。
「推動低碳經濟」是世界環境日第二個重點，也 是政府最不願面對的產業結構調整的關鍵問題。台灣能源幾乎百分之百仰賴進口，全無條件發展高耗能產業；尤其是以外銷為目標的高耗能產業。花了一大堆運費進 口能源，留下可觀的汙染及碳排放卻沒有什麼利潤；就產業政策而言，這完全說不通。扁政府推稱產業百分之五十三的溫室氣體排放是維持台灣經濟成長的動力，以 這幾年台灣的經濟表現，證實台灣完全無視能源短缺、環境破壞的事實。
十年來，在推動節能減碳上，政府幾乎沒有任何實質投入，官方一直停留 在呼口號階段，甚至迄今未建立關鍵的碳排放登錄制度，各企業、機構的碳排放完全沒有紀錄；沒有紀錄等於無從驗證、比較，徒有漂亮數字任人喊，未能有效減碳 幾乎是必然。碳排放不減反增，問題出在哪裡，難道不是一目了然？
世界環境日聯合國定位為環境嘉年華，但在台灣，則絕不能只是一場環境節慶，而應是自今天起無限期推動的新生活運動。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 5, 2008
Today is World Environment Day. The theme is "Kick the Habit! Towards a Low Carbon Economy." In the hope of creating an energy saving and carbon reduction trend,
President Ma will officially announce large-scale energy saving and carbon reduction measures. Taiwan's energy saving and carbon reduction campaign is not progressing, and may even be regressing. If the government merely mouths slogans, but fails to engage in self-introspection and reform, then a single day of slogan shouting is probably all we will get.
In 1972, the United Nations held its first Conference on the Human Environment in Sweden. It issued a Declaration on the Human Environment and an action plan. It held that human beings are capable pursuing economic development and improving the quality of life without sacrificing the environment. It named June 5 World Environment Day and resolved to hold meetings every year on that day. Each year it would actively promote a different environmental theme. This year's theme is "Kick the Habit! Towards a Low Carbon Economy."
This year's United Nations World Environment Day theme involves the concept of "kicking," as in "kicking an addiction." It underscores the need to reduce carbon emissions by kicking wasteful energy habits. It also conveys the notion that all that is necessary for energy reform is the will. Or as former US first lady Nancy Reagan put it: "Just say no." The United Nations suggested switching from cars to public transportion, turning off electrical appliances when they are not in use, and switching to energy-saving light bulbs. These are things people can easily do but have been too lazy to do. It urged people to kick their carbon dependency today.
World Environment Day activities encouraged the kicking of "carbon habits." Chief offenders are residential and commercial sectors and the transportation sector. On Taiwan these two sectors are responsible for up to 32% of all greenhouse gas emissions, second only to industry at about 53% of all emissions. These two categories of carbon emissions have rapidly risen in recent years. The government however, has failed to adopt the necessary and appropriate energy saving and carbon reduction measures. Even media promotion has been limited. If the government is serious about signing on to the World Environment Day "Kick the carbon habit" campaign, it should actively implement such policies, and attempt to achieve tangible results.
In recent years the government has favored the economy over the environment. The result has been a carbon reduction report card worse than many developing countries. A two-year investigation conducted by international organizations found that Taiwan's carbon dioxide emissions numbers increased faster than any other region on earth. This is not the kind of success one hopes to achieve.
The Kyoto Protocol was passed in late 1997, and enacted in February 2005. Developed countries and even developing countries not bound by the protocol began reducing carbon. Even the United States, which refused to sign the protocol, actively began reducing carbon. Only Taiwan did nothing. It used the excuse that it had been "rejected by the UN and orphaned by the international community" to rationalize its failure to reduce carbon. Not being subject to international sanctions, Taiwan's carbon reduction efforts came to nothing.
The residential and commercial sectors and the transportation sector are sectors that can be tackled immediately. In addition to media promotion, the government should provide greater financial and tax incentives. It should encourage people to use emissions-free vehicles, or promote energy-saving green building materials and green buildings. The United States encourages electric hybrid vehicles by providing substantial excise tax relief. The EU provides incentives for people who drive low emissions vehicles. What about Taiwan? The Chen regime long touted itself as green. But any time money was involved, it fell silent. Suddenly fuel-efficient cars, green building materials, and green buildings no longer mattered.
The Chen regime's conspicuous lack of concrete incentives tells us its campaigns to promote energy saving and carbon reduction were empty talk.
The second theme of World Environment Day is the "promotion of a low-carbon economy." It is also one of the key issues the government was most reluctant to confront, involving as it did changes to the industrial structure. Taiwan is almost totally dependent upon energy imports. It is developing high energy-consumption industries, especially export-oriented high energy-consumption industries without restraint. It spends a great deal of money importing energy. This energy generates large amounts of pollution and carbon emissions, but very little profit. In terms of industrial policy, it is totally unjustifiable. The Chen regime says that those industries responsible for generating 53% of Taiwan's greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for Taiwan's economic growth. But Taiwan's economic performance over the past several years prove that Taiwan has completely disregarded the reality of energy shortages and damage to the environment.
The government has virtually nothing to show for 10 years of promoting energy savings and carbon reduction. Officials are stuck in the slogan shouting phase. Even today they have yet to establish carbon emissions standards. Businesses and government agencies keep no carbon emission records. A lack of records means nothing can be verified or compared. Anyone can cite impressive numbers. But have they actually reduced carbon? Carbon emissions have increased, not diminished. Is the source of the problem not clear for all to see?
The United Nations has defined World Environment Day as an environmental festival. But on Taiwan, it must be more than a festival. It must be the beginning of a New Life Movement.
世界環境日：政府該有更積極的作為
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.05 02:58 am
今天是世界環境日，「推動低碳經濟與生活」是全球活動主題。馬總統將正式宣示推動大規模節能減碳措施，希望帶動節能減碳的風氣。不過，以台灣節能減碳進度之落後，甚至仍在持續惡化，若政府光是號召，不做更深刻層面的檢討調整，恐怕只是呼一天口號罷了。
一 九七二年，聯合國在瑞典召開首屆人類環境會議，發表「人類環境宣言」及行動計畫，認為人類有足夠能力在不犧牲環境品質的前提下追求經濟發展與生活品質的改 善；並將會議召開日六月五日定為每年世界環境日，每年選定一個年度主題積極推動。今年世界環境日的主題是「踢開碳習慣，推動低碳經濟與生活」。
聯 合國今年世界環境日主題，很俏皮且貼切的選用了Kick（踢）這個字；一方面描述出減碳工作的急迫性，表達了對耗能的舊生活習慣的憎惡；另一方面也顯示， 若要改正，只不過是舉腳一踢般地簡單，關鍵端看要不要做。聯合國並列舉少開車改用大眾運輸工具、電器不用時要關機而不是待機、改用節能燈泡等隨手可做但一 直懶得動手的生活惡習，呼籲大家今天一腳踢開。
世界環境日活動要踢開的「碳習慣」，民生的「住商」及「運輸」應是主要的兩塊。台灣這兩塊 溫室氣體排放合計高達百分之三十二，僅次於「產業」百分之五十三左右的排放量。應強調的是，這兩塊的碳排放近年還在快速上升，但政府始終不曾發起節能減 碳，甚至連宣導也做得有限。若認真響應世界環境日「踢開碳習慣」，在政府帶頭下求其落實，應能拿出相當不錯的成績單。
近年來政府重經濟而輕環境，以致減碳的成績即便與開發中國家相較也很難看；這兩年一些國際組織的調查，台灣二氧化碳排放量非但未減，且增長速度去年是全球第一，這個「成績」實在使國人顏面無光。
自 一九九七年底京都議定書通過，及二○○五年二月該議定書生效；不止已開發國家，初期未被公約列管的開發中國家也開始做減碳努力；甚至拒簽議定書的美國亦積 極減碳，只有台灣幾乎沒有動作，拿「被聯合國拒絕的國際社會孤兒」來合理化沒有減碳的理由，卻也因暫無國際制裁壓力，致推動減碳毫無成績。
「住 商」及「運輸」是可立即著手的兩塊，政府除了要積極宣導，更要提供財稅誘因。不管是鼓勵民眾使用無碳燃料車輛，或推動節能的綠建材及綠建築，一定要有財稅 誘因。美國鼓勵油電混合車，給予減免高額貨物稅；歐盟獎勵民眾換開清潔汽車，也有強力財稅誘因；但台灣呢？標榜綠色的扁政府只要一談到錢，不管是省油車， 或是綠建材、綠建築，一概靜悄悄；然而，沒有誘因，顯示政府推動節能減碳全是空話一句罷了。
「推動低碳經濟」是世界環境日第二個重點，也 是政府最不願面對的產業結構調整的關鍵問題。台灣能源幾乎百分之百仰賴進口，全無條件發展高耗能產業；尤其是以外銷為目標的高耗能產業。花了一大堆運費進 口能源，留下可觀的汙染及碳排放卻沒有什麼利潤；就產業政策而言，這完全說不通。扁政府推稱產業百分之五十三的溫室氣體排放是維持台灣經濟成長的動力，以 這幾年台灣的經濟表現，證實台灣完全無視能源短缺、環境破壞的事實。
十年來，在推動節能減碳上，政府幾乎沒有任何實質投入，官方一直停留 在呼口號階段，甚至迄今未建立關鍵的碳排放登錄制度，各企業、機構的碳排放完全沒有紀錄；沒有紀錄等於無從驗證、比較，徒有漂亮數字任人喊，未能有效減碳 幾乎是必然。碳排放不減反增，問題出在哪裡，難道不是一目了然？
世界環境日聯合國定位為環境嘉年華，但在台灣，則絕不能只是一場環境節慶，而應是自今天起無限期推動的新生活運動。
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Since They are not Secrets, Why Doesn't Ma Declassify Them?
Since They are not Secrets, Why Doesn't Ma Declassify Them?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 4, 2008
Ma Ying-jeou has decided not to declassify Chen Shui-bian's "top secret" State Confidential Expenses case files. He has instead authorized their use by justice system officials. His decision may allow the investigation and prosecution of the scandal to go forward, but the sacrificial victim is the cause of justice.
Chen Shui-bian's classification of incriminating evidence as "top secret," to be "sealed in perpetuity," was fundamentally illegal. We will return to this point later. To begin with, government secrecy is fundamentally at odds with the cause of justice. Even assuming we are dealing with bona fide state secrets, does that automatically mean they may not be made public? Other values also require protection. If conflicts arise, is maintaining secrecy really our only option? Take for example the State Special Expenses scandal. If the president can classify incriminating evidence as "top secret," the people have no way of knowing what crimes the president may have committed. It is highly doubtful whether Ma's decision accords with the overarching principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law.
In 1971, the New York Times published a classified U.S. Defense Department report on the Vietnam War, known as the "Pentagon Papers." The U.S. government filed suit against the Times. It demanded a restraining order prohibiting its publication, on the grounds that it "leaked state secrets and endangered national security." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the government, on the grounds that the government may not use such methods to cover up the truth. At the time the United States was mired in the Vietnam War. The Defense Department policy paper on the war was undeniably a "state secret." Nevertheless the media felt the people had a right to know, and the courts agreed. As we can see, even wartime secrets, and by extension controversial issues of national security, must yield to higher demands for justice and the people's right to know. Prosecutors have already investigated Chen Shui-bian's so-called "diplomatic secrets" and exposed them as pure fiction. Chen is already guilty of a crime. Yet the public is being denied its right to know the inside story. Clearly this is not the correct decision.
Chen Shui-bian's classification of incriminating evidence as "top secret," to be "sealed in perpetuity," is nothing more than deceit. The public is perfectly aware it is a charade, but they are denied access to the whole truth and the larger picture. This seriously undermines the cause of justice. The public is well aware that among the incriminating evidence Chen Shui-bian classified as "top secret" is the so-called "Southern Front Project." But according to information released by President Ma after taking office, the documents Chen Shui-bian has turned over to the Ma administration do not include any "Southern Front Project." No file with that name can be found. Had Chen Shui-bian classified documents in accordance with the State Secrets Protection Act, then turned them over to prosecutors or the court, records would show a document number and a chain of custody. But no record of any such document transfers exists. In fact, no record of any such document exist. Do these so-called "top secret documents" even exist? Were they classified in accordance with the law? Clearly everyone has serious doubts. If Chen Shui-bian failed to follow even the most basic procedures in handling these documents, where is the secrecy he speaks of? Obviously no secret documents exist. Therefore how can President Ma allow the justice system to make use of them? The entire affair is a transparent hoax concocted by Chen Shui-bian. What reason can Ma Ying-jeou have for not coming right out and exposing Chen Shui-bian's hoax for what it is?
Even if some "Southern Front Project" actually existed, it is doubtful Chen has the right to withhold knowledge of it from the public on grounds of "national security." The State Secrets Protection Act expressly states that government officials may not conceal incriminating evidence by making it secret. This is the letter and spirit of the law. Chen Shui-bian exhausted every means at his disposal to prevent the State Confidential Expenses scandal from going to trial. After he surrendered the evidence, he suddenly classified it as secret and demanded that the court return it. His intent to conceal evidence of criminal wrongdoing is clear for all to see. His act of classifying them as secret is itself illegal, hence invalid. Therefore even assuming Chen actually classified some documents, the Ma administration ought to declassify them. The Ma administration must do the right thing. It must obey the law. No documents can be found. No document numbers can be found. They cannot be found because they do not exist. Thefore what precisely are these alleged "state secrets" that Chen Shui-bian, Ma Ying-jeou, and the [院檢所] keep referring to?
The "Southern Front Project" is not a state secret. It was not legally classified as such. President Ma, by treating it as if it were, is effectively abetting Chen Shui-bian's crime. Is the one billion NT Papua New Guinea (PNG) scandal a "diplomatic secret?" Taiwan attempted to establish diplomatic relations by buying foreign politicians. Did the exposure of this scandal harm the nation's interests? Of course it did. But if we fail to expose such scandals, how will the public ever learn the truth? How will we ever punish corruption? By the same token, the State Confidential Expenses scandal is a test of our constitution and the rule of law. It is a test of the government's legitimacy, its legal mandate. What excuse does Ma have to stop people from understanding the situation and learning the truth?
The government has an obligation to pursue justice in accordance with the constitution and the nation's laws. The essence of democratic elections is right of the people to replace the nation's ruling authorities. If the "Southern Front Project" and other "top secret" documents are mere fiction, yet President Ma helps Chen maintain the pretense that they are real by refusing to declassify them, he is not merely engaging in moral posturing, he is trampling over justice.
既無機密，馬總統緣何「不解密」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.04 02:57 am
馬英九總統決定：陳水扁所「核定」的國務機要費弊案的「絕對機密」罪證不解密，但授權司法機關使用。這個做法，弊案的偵審或可進行，但社會正義卻被犧牲了。
陳水扁將弊案的罪證「核定」為「絕對機密」且稱「永久保密」，本來就不合法；此點稍後再作申論。先談「國家機密」和「社會正義」價值衝突的問題；倘若真有國家機密存在，是否即為絕對不可公開？若有其他價值亦必須保護，而產生價值衝突時，難道只能選擇保密一途？例如國務機要費弊案，若總統以國家機密掩飾犯罪，人民即無法知悉總統的罪行；這樣的選擇是否符合民主法治的法理以及憲法的立國原則，恐怕大有商榷餘地。
一九七一年，美國紐約時報刊登了國防部關於越戰的機密報告，美國政府告上法院，以「洩漏國家機密、危害國家安全」為由要求禁止刊登，但美國最高法院判決政府敗訴，認為政府不能用這種手段達到掩蓋真相的目的。當時美國正深陷越戰，國防部探討戰爭政策的文件，應當不折不扣就是「國家機密」；然而，不僅媒體認為人民有權知悉真相，法院也表支持。由此可見，連戰爭機密這樣的課題，以及引伸的國家安全爭議，在更高層次的司法正義及人民的「知之權利」之前亦應退讓；那麼，一項由陳水扁自導自演，又經檢察官調查純屬子虛的所謂「外交機密」，既已涉及犯罪，國人竟然無權知悉內情，兩相比較，這當然絕非正確的選擇！
何況，陳水扁「核定」的所謂「絕對機密、永久保密」根本就是騙局；國人皆知其詐偽，卻無權知悉此一詐偽的真相和全貌，此種結果不啻嚴重傷害了政治正義。眾所皆知，在陳水扁就國務機要費弊案罪證核定的「機密」中，有所謂「南線專案」；但據馬總統上任後發布的消息指出，陳水扁移交清單中並無該「南線專案」，連檔案名稱皆無。倘若陳水扁確曾依國家機密保護法而核定該件機密，則即使檔案內容已交檢察官或法院，但移交清冊中至少應有一個文號，並加註目前置於法院；如今移交清冊連文號名稱皆無，則所謂機密也者，究竟是否存在？是否確實依法完成核定？顯皆大有疑問。倘若根本未完成法定程序，則何來機密可言？既無機密，馬總統又如何「同意」院檢使用？且又「同意」使用什麼「機密」？這不但是陳水扁炮製的騙局，馬政府更有何理由不直接拆穿陳水扁的騙局？
退一步說，即使真有南線專案的話，如同前述，是否即可以國家安全為由，不讓社會大眾知悉，本即大有疑問；而國家機密保護法明文規定，不得以「隱匿違法」為核定機密的目的，正是這種精神的體現。陳水扁用盡各方法阻撓國務機要費弊案的審理，在交出所有罪證之後，又忽而宣稱已「補核定」為機密、要求法院返還云云；其以隱匿罪證為目的至為明顯，則其核定就是違法，當然無效。因而，縱使有核定的形式，馬政府亦應加以解除，方為依法行政的正道。何況，如今卻連文號都沒有，則陳水扁、馬英九及院檢所稱的「機密」，究竟是什麼碗糕？
涉案的「南線專案」既非依法核定的機密，但馬總統如今卻以「機密」視之，恐已形同包庇陳水扁犯罪。試問，巴紐十億元醜聞案不是外交「機密」嗎？揭發之後，台灣企圖以金錢收買外國政治人物，達到建交目的的作為全部曝光，這難道沒有傷害國家利益嗎？但事件倘不曝光，國人如何能知真相，又如何能懲治貪腐？同理，國務機要費弊案的總統貪汙犯罪，這是民主憲政法治國理念的大考驗，也是統治正當性的大課題，有什麼理由可以阻擋人民知悉內情真相？
依憲、依法追求社會正義，乃是政府的憲法義務、政治道德，亦是民主選舉更換政權的精義所在。如果根本沒有「南線專案」這個「機密」，馬總統卻宣稱「不解密」，這不僅是鄉愿，簡直是踐踏正義！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 4, 2008
Ma Ying-jeou has decided not to declassify Chen Shui-bian's "top secret" State Confidential Expenses case files. He has instead authorized their use by justice system officials. His decision may allow the investigation and prosecution of the scandal to go forward, but the sacrificial victim is the cause of justice.
Chen Shui-bian's classification of incriminating evidence as "top secret," to be "sealed in perpetuity," was fundamentally illegal. We will return to this point later. To begin with, government secrecy is fundamentally at odds with the cause of justice. Even assuming we are dealing with bona fide state secrets, does that automatically mean they may not be made public? Other values also require protection. If conflicts arise, is maintaining secrecy really our only option? Take for example the State Special Expenses scandal. If the president can classify incriminating evidence as "top secret," the people have no way of knowing what crimes the president may have committed. It is highly doubtful whether Ma's decision accords with the overarching principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law.
In 1971, the New York Times published a classified U.S. Defense Department report on the Vietnam War, known as the "Pentagon Papers." The U.S. government filed suit against the Times. It demanded a restraining order prohibiting its publication, on the grounds that it "leaked state secrets and endangered national security." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the government, on the grounds that the government may not use such methods to cover up the truth. At the time the United States was mired in the Vietnam War. The Defense Department policy paper on the war was undeniably a "state secret." Nevertheless the media felt the people had a right to know, and the courts agreed. As we can see, even wartime secrets, and by extension controversial issues of national security, must yield to higher demands for justice and the people's right to know. Prosecutors have already investigated Chen Shui-bian's so-called "diplomatic secrets" and exposed them as pure fiction. Chen is already guilty of a crime. Yet the public is being denied its right to know the inside story. Clearly this is not the correct decision.
Chen Shui-bian's classification of incriminating evidence as "top secret," to be "sealed in perpetuity," is nothing more than deceit. The public is perfectly aware it is a charade, but they are denied access to the whole truth and the larger picture. This seriously undermines the cause of justice. The public is well aware that among the incriminating evidence Chen Shui-bian classified as "top secret" is the so-called "Southern Front Project." But according to information released by President Ma after taking office, the documents Chen Shui-bian has turned over to the Ma administration do not include any "Southern Front Project." No file with that name can be found. Had Chen Shui-bian classified documents in accordance with the State Secrets Protection Act, then turned them over to prosecutors or the court, records would show a document number and a chain of custody. But no record of any such document transfers exists. In fact, no record of any such document exist. Do these so-called "top secret documents" even exist? Were they classified in accordance with the law? Clearly everyone has serious doubts. If Chen Shui-bian failed to follow even the most basic procedures in handling these documents, where is the secrecy he speaks of? Obviously no secret documents exist. Therefore how can President Ma allow the justice system to make use of them? The entire affair is a transparent hoax concocted by Chen Shui-bian. What reason can Ma Ying-jeou have for not coming right out and exposing Chen Shui-bian's hoax for what it is?
Even if some "Southern Front Project" actually existed, it is doubtful Chen has the right to withhold knowledge of it from the public on grounds of "national security." The State Secrets Protection Act expressly states that government officials may not conceal incriminating evidence by making it secret. This is the letter and spirit of the law. Chen Shui-bian exhausted every means at his disposal to prevent the State Confidential Expenses scandal from going to trial. After he surrendered the evidence, he suddenly classified it as secret and demanded that the court return it. His intent to conceal evidence of criminal wrongdoing is clear for all to see. His act of classifying them as secret is itself illegal, hence invalid. Therefore even assuming Chen actually classified some documents, the Ma administration ought to declassify them. The Ma administration must do the right thing. It must obey the law. No documents can be found. No document numbers can be found. They cannot be found because they do not exist. Thefore what precisely are these alleged "state secrets" that Chen Shui-bian, Ma Ying-jeou, and the [院檢所] keep referring to?
The "Southern Front Project" is not a state secret. It was not legally classified as such. President Ma, by treating it as if it were, is effectively abetting Chen Shui-bian's crime. Is the one billion NT Papua New Guinea (PNG) scandal a "diplomatic secret?" Taiwan attempted to establish diplomatic relations by buying foreign politicians. Did the exposure of this scandal harm the nation's interests? Of course it did. But if we fail to expose such scandals, how will the public ever learn the truth? How will we ever punish corruption? By the same token, the State Confidential Expenses scandal is a test of our constitution and the rule of law. It is a test of the government's legitimacy, its legal mandate. What excuse does Ma have to stop people from understanding the situation and learning the truth?
The government has an obligation to pursue justice in accordance with the constitution and the nation's laws. The essence of democratic elections is right of the people to replace the nation's ruling authorities. If the "Southern Front Project" and other "top secret" documents are mere fiction, yet President Ma helps Chen maintain the pretense that they are real by refusing to declassify them, he is not merely engaging in moral posturing, he is trampling over justice.
既無機密，馬總統緣何「不解密」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.04 02:57 am
馬英九總統決定：陳水扁所「核定」的國務機要費弊案的「絕對機密」罪證不解密，但授權司法機關使用。這個做法，弊案的偵審或可進行，但社會正義卻被犧牲了。
陳水扁將弊案的罪證「核定」為「絕對機密」且稱「永久保密」，本來就不合法；此點稍後再作申論。先談「國家機密」和「社會正義」價值衝突的問題；倘若真有國家機密存在，是否即為絕對不可公開？若有其他價值亦必須保護，而產生價值衝突時，難道只能選擇保密一途？例如國務機要費弊案，若總統以國家機密掩飾犯罪，人民即無法知悉總統的罪行；這樣的選擇是否符合民主法治的法理以及憲法的立國原則，恐怕大有商榷餘地。
一九七一年，美國紐約時報刊登了國防部關於越戰的機密報告，美國政府告上法院，以「洩漏國家機密、危害國家安全」為由要求禁止刊登，但美國最高法院判決政府敗訴，認為政府不能用這種手段達到掩蓋真相的目的。當時美國正深陷越戰，國防部探討戰爭政策的文件，應當不折不扣就是「國家機密」；然而，不僅媒體認為人民有權知悉真相，法院也表支持。由此可見，連戰爭機密這樣的課題，以及引伸的國家安全爭議，在更高層次的司法正義及人民的「知之權利」之前亦應退讓；那麼，一項由陳水扁自導自演，又經檢察官調查純屬子虛的所謂「外交機密」，既已涉及犯罪，國人竟然無權知悉內情，兩相比較，這當然絕非正確的選擇！
何況，陳水扁「核定」的所謂「絕對機密、永久保密」根本就是騙局；國人皆知其詐偽，卻無權知悉此一詐偽的真相和全貌，此種結果不啻嚴重傷害了政治正義。眾所皆知，在陳水扁就國務機要費弊案罪證核定的「機密」中，有所謂「南線專案」；但據馬總統上任後發布的消息指出，陳水扁移交清單中並無該「南線專案」，連檔案名稱皆無。倘若陳水扁確曾依國家機密保護法而核定該件機密，則即使檔案內容已交檢察官或法院，但移交清冊中至少應有一個文號，並加註目前置於法院；如今移交清冊連文號名稱皆無，則所謂機密也者，究竟是否存在？是否確實依法完成核定？顯皆大有疑問。倘若根本未完成法定程序，則何來機密可言？既無機密，馬總統又如何「同意」院檢使用？且又「同意」使用什麼「機密」？這不但是陳水扁炮製的騙局，馬政府更有何理由不直接拆穿陳水扁的騙局？
退一步說，即使真有南線專案的話，如同前述，是否即可以國家安全為由，不讓社會大眾知悉，本即大有疑問；而國家機密保護法明文規定，不得以「隱匿違法」為核定機密的目的，正是這種精神的體現。陳水扁用盡各方法阻撓國務機要費弊案的審理，在交出所有罪證之後，又忽而宣稱已「補核定」為機密、要求法院返還云云；其以隱匿罪證為目的至為明顯，則其核定就是違法，當然無效。因而，縱使有核定的形式，馬政府亦應加以解除，方為依法行政的正道。何況，如今卻連文號都沒有，則陳水扁、馬英九及院檢所稱的「機密」，究竟是什麼碗糕？
涉案的「南線專案」既非依法核定的機密，但馬總統如今卻以「機密」視之，恐已形同包庇陳水扁犯罪。試問，巴紐十億元醜聞案不是外交「機密」嗎？揭發之後，台灣企圖以金錢收買外國政治人物，達到建交目的的作為全部曝光，這難道沒有傷害國家利益嗎？但事件倘不曝光，國人如何能知真相，又如何能懲治貪腐？同理，國務機要費弊案的總統貪汙犯罪，這是民主憲政法治國理念的大考驗，也是統治正當性的大課題，有什麼理由可以阻擋人民知悉內情真相？
依憲、依法追求社會正義，乃是政府的憲法義務、政治道德，亦是民主選舉更換政權的精義所在。如果根本沒有「南線專案」這個「機密」，馬總統卻宣稱「不解密」，這不僅是鄉愿，簡直是踐踏正義！
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Will the DPP Repudiate the 1992 Consensus if It Regains Power?
Will the DPP Repudiate the 1992 Consensus if It Regains Power?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 3, 2008
DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen said: "The DPP will be an opposition party with experience in governance." Perhaps she meant that the DPP has had eight years of experience in governance. It understands the consequences of governing successfully or unsuccessfully. Now that the Democratic Progressive Party is again in the opposition, it will use its "experience in governance" to provide checks and balances against the ruling KMT. It will be a loyal opposition party that displays the statesmanship befitting a party with experience in governance.
Since assuming office, the Ma administration has provided the DPP with numerous targets to shoot at, such as the Wu Hu Meeting and gasoline prices. The shockwaves from these controversies have temporarily died down. Now would be a good time for the Ma administration to review the results of its first engagement on the battlefield. It would also be a good time for the DPP to review its reversion to the status of an opposition party.
The KMT has stepped up. The DPP has stepped down. The two have reversed roles. The two major issues that have arisen in the wake of this ruling party change have been the Wu Hu Meeting and gasoline prices. The KMT is cleaning up the mess left by the DPP. The DPP, as "an opposition party with experience in governance," ought to be displaying a sense of responsibility in the way it approaches these issues. It isn't.
Let's talk about the Wu Hu Meeting. The Hu Siew Meeting at the Boao Forum has been followed by the Lien Hu Meeting and the Wu Hu Meeting. Each of these has been an effort to repair the damage caused by eight years of Democratic Progressive Party misrule. One could even say that the DPP single-handedly provoked the historic Siew, Lien, Wu meetings with Hu Jintao that took place over the past month and half. But we have yet to see the DPP display the statesmanship befitting "an opposition party with experience in governance." One month from now, on July 4, weekend charter flights are set to bring mainland tourists to Taiwan. Yet all we hear from the DPP is "Why was Ma Ying-jeou referred to as Mr. Ma and not President Ma?" "Why did everyone refer only to the Chinese people and not the Republic of China?" Is this how the "opposition party with experience in governance" intends to conduct itself?
Let's talk about gasoline prices. The Liu Cabinet's handling of gasoline price hikes was far from satisfactory. But as an "opposition party with experience in governance" the DPP ought to remember the harm it inflicted by freezing gasoline prices while in office before it opposes current price hikes. Yet all we hear from the DPP is the simplistic accusation "Price Hike Cabinet." Is the DPP really advocating a continued freeze on gasoline prices? The former DPP government is responsible for today's gasoline prices. The Liu Cabinet has been in office only seven days. Yet the DPP is already screaming "Step down!" Have they forgotten the lengths to which they went to cover up Chen Shui-bian regime corruption so that the DPP would not have to step down?
When Tsai Ing-wen said that "the DPP will be an opposition party with experience in governance," she seemed to be implying that when the DPP reverted to opposition party status, it would no longer oppose the ruling party out of sheer contrariness. For example, Beijing is willing to give Taipei more diplomatic breathing space. It is giving priority to Taipei's participation in the WHO. Yet the DPP's first reaction is to oppose the use of the term "Chinese Taipei." If the DPP was merely playing "Bad Cop" to the KMT's "Good Cop," that would be one thing. But does the DPP really want to say no to everything? Does the DPP intend to oppose the use of the term "Chinese Taipei" while participating in the IOC, APEC and the WTO as well? The name "Taiwan Post" will be changed back to the "Republic of China Post." The DPP refers to this as "de-Taiwanization," even as it denies that it is engaged in "de-Sinicization." This led Premier Liu Chao-hsuan to respond that "the Republic of China is Taiwan." Why doesn't the DPP return to its former position that "Taiwan is the Republic of China?" It has no need to oppose the Republic of China Post. The Ma administration hopes to "increase domestic demand." The DPP said that would trigger inflation. Does that mean in order to prevent inflation one should not increase domestic demand? Does that mean preventing an increase in domestic demand will stop inflation?
Taiwan has undergone a "second change of ruling parties." Its biggest political benefit is that the ruling KMT is now a ruling party that knows what it is like to be out of power. Conversely, the opposition DPP is now an opposition party that knows what it is like to be in power. This trial by fire has enabled the KMT to make a breakthrough, to conclude that "Taiwan is the Republic of China" and the "Republic of China is Taiwan." Being out of power has motivated the KMT to aspire to clean and competent governance. These are painful lessons the KMT learned during its eight years out of office. By contrast, the DPP still insists that referring to the post office as the "Republic of China Post" amounts to "de-Taiwanization." The DPP still insists that the "Southern Front" is a state secret that may not be declassified. Is this what the DPP considers conduct befitting "an opposition party with experience in governance?"
Eight years ago, as chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Tsai Ing-wen denied the existence of the 1992 Consensus. This set the tone for the ruling DPP's cross-strait policy. It also painted the DPP into a corner. The result? Under pressure from Washington and Beijing the DPP's cross-strait policy slammed head on into a brick wall. This was a major reason it lost power. Yet today Tsai Ing-wen is declaring that if the Democratic Progressive Party were to regain office, it would still not accept the 1992 Consensus. In effect the DPP's cross-strait position has gone from yesterday's "There never was any 1992 Consensus" to today's "Although a consensus was reached in 1992, we oppose the 1992 Consensus." Indeed, the correlation between the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations has been reinforced. Is the mission of the Democratic Progressive Party, now in the opposition, to declare that if it regains office it will not accept the 1992 Consensus?
After ten days back in the political opposition, the DPP must be alert. Given the cross-strait warming trend, if the DPP persists in rejecting and objecting to the 1992 Consensus, to participation in the WHO under the name Chinese Taipei, to missile reductions, to direct air passenger and air cargo links, the DPP may well paint itself into a corner, again. Would that really be a smart move on the part of "an opposition party with experience in governance?"
民進黨再執政後要否定九二共識？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.03 03:01 am
民進黨主席蔡英文說：「民進黨將是一個有執政經驗的反對黨。」這句話的意思也許是說：民進黨已有八年執政經驗，對於執政的成敗得失已有體悟；因此，民進黨如今再度變成反對黨，將以「過去的執政經驗」作為反對與制衡的憑藉，從而可以作一個「有執政高度」的反對黨。
馬政府上台，提供了民進黨許多可以發揮的題材，如吳胡會及汽油漲價等；如今這些議題的震盪暫已告一段落，此刻不但是馬政府應當回頭清理其執政首役戰場的時候，也是民進黨可以回頭檢討其重作馮婦「反對黨初體驗」的時刻。
國民黨上台，民進黨下野；主客易位，第一次交手的兩大議題，吳胡會及汽油漲價，卻皆在收拾民進黨留下的爛攤子。民進黨處理這類議題，正是應當表現其「有執政經驗的反對黨」的時機，但事實卻似乎不然。
先談吳胡會。自博鰲論壇胡蕭會，至連胡會，至吳胡會，可謂皆在修補民進黨執政八年所造成的兩岸創傷；甚至可說，其實是民進黨一手促成了一個半月內蕭、連、吳三人密集與胡錦濤會面的「歷史機遇」。但是，迄未見民進黨以「有執政經驗」的高度對此一變局提出解讀。接著，一個月後，七月四日，周末包機就要載著陸客來台，卻只聞民進黨說「為什麼只稱馬先生，不稱馬總統」、「為什麼只說中華民族，不說中華民國」，難道這些就是「有執政經驗的反對黨」的極致表現？
再談汽油漲價。劉內閣處理這次漲價，確實有欠周全。但是，既然是「有執政經驗的反對黨」，似乎先應想到自己「執政」時「凍漲」的遺害，再決定當如何「反對」；如今卻以一句「漲價內閣」就概括一切，難道民進黨能主張油價繼續「凍漲」？何況，民進黨前政府對油價亦有責任，在劉內閣就任僅七天之時，民進黨一下子就將口號喊到「下台」的高度，有沒有想過當年自己是如何包庇貪腐無狀的陳水扁不下台？
蔡英文點出「民進黨將是一個有執政經驗的反對黨」，似乎意指民進黨再度作為反對黨，不應再有過去那種「為反對而反對」的民粹心態。例如，據稱北京願意鬆解台灣的外交參與，而謂將首先考慮ＷＨＯ；但民進黨的第一個反應卻是，反對以「中華台北」名義加入；這若是欲與政府扮演黑白臉也就罷了，但難道真要反對到底？更是否將一併反對以「中華台北」參加奧會、ＡＰＥＣ與ＷＴＯ？又如，台灣郵政將改回中華民國郵政，民進黨竟稱這是「去台灣化」，卻不說民進黨是「去中華民國化」；閣揆劉兆玄因此在答詢時稱「中華民國就是台灣」，而民進黨何不亦回復到「台灣就是中華民國」的立場，即不必反對「中華民國郵政」。再如，馬政府欲「擴大內需」，民進黨說將引發「通貨膨脹」；但是，為了防止通貨膨脹就不應擴大內需嗎？或者停止擴大內需就能停息通貨膨脹？
台灣經歷「二次政黨輪替」，其中最大的政治效益應是：重新執政的國民黨成了「有在野經驗的執政黨」，重新下野的民進黨也成了「有執政經驗的反對黨」。國民黨經此試煉，才有「台灣在語義上就是中華民國」及「中華民國就是台灣」的突破，也才有廉能政治的自期自勉，這些應皆是得自八年在野的痛苦教訓；相對而言，民進黨如果仍將「中華民國郵政」指為「去台灣化」，又仍堅持「南線專案」為不可解密的國家機密，則怎麼可能表現出「有執政經驗的反對黨」的高度？
八年前，擔任陸委會主委的蔡英文否認有「九二共識」存在，將民進黨政府的兩岸政策定了調，也使民進黨困在牆角，終致民進黨的兩岸政策在「台／美／中」皆推車撞壁，成為其失去政權的主因之一；如今，蔡英文卻說，如果民進黨再度執政，可以不接受「九二共識」；這使得民進黨的兩岸論述，從過去的「沒有九二共識」，轉變成今日的「雖有九二共識，但仍反對九二共識」。誠然，「九二共識」與「一中各表」的聯結尚待加強；但難道民進黨現今在野的使命，就是為了宣示在執政後不接受「九二共識」嗎？
經歷這十餘日「反對黨初體驗」，民進黨須有警覺，倘若只是反對或不接受「九二共識」、「中華台北ＷＨＯ」、「飛彈撤減」、「先客後貨」，恐怕會在「兩岸熱和」中再度將民進黨困在牆角，那豈是「有執政經驗的反對黨」的明智抉擇？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 3, 2008
DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen said: "The DPP will be an opposition party with experience in governance." Perhaps she meant that the DPP has had eight years of experience in governance. It understands the consequences of governing successfully or unsuccessfully. Now that the Democratic Progressive Party is again in the opposition, it will use its "experience in governance" to provide checks and balances against the ruling KMT. It will be a loyal opposition party that displays the statesmanship befitting a party with experience in governance.
Since assuming office, the Ma administration has provided the DPP with numerous targets to shoot at, such as the Wu Hu Meeting and gasoline prices. The shockwaves from these controversies have temporarily died down. Now would be a good time for the Ma administration to review the results of its first engagement on the battlefield. It would also be a good time for the DPP to review its reversion to the status of an opposition party.
The KMT has stepped up. The DPP has stepped down. The two have reversed roles. The two major issues that have arisen in the wake of this ruling party change have been the Wu Hu Meeting and gasoline prices. The KMT is cleaning up the mess left by the DPP. The DPP, as "an opposition party with experience in governance," ought to be displaying a sense of responsibility in the way it approaches these issues. It isn't.
Let's talk about the Wu Hu Meeting. The Hu Siew Meeting at the Boao Forum has been followed by the Lien Hu Meeting and the Wu Hu Meeting. Each of these has been an effort to repair the damage caused by eight years of Democratic Progressive Party misrule. One could even say that the DPP single-handedly provoked the historic Siew, Lien, Wu meetings with Hu Jintao that took place over the past month and half. But we have yet to see the DPP display the statesmanship befitting "an opposition party with experience in governance." One month from now, on July 4, weekend charter flights are set to bring mainland tourists to Taiwan. Yet all we hear from the DPP is "Why was Ma Ying-jeou referred to as Mr. Ma and not President Ma?" "Why did everyone refer only to the Chinese people and not the Republic of China?" Is this how the "opposition party with experience in governance" intends to conduct itself?
Let's talk about gasoline prices. The Liu Cabinet's handling of gasoline price hikes was far from satisfactory. But as an "opposition party with experience in governance" the DPP ought to remember the harm it inflicted by freezing gasoline prices while in office before it opposes current price hikes. Yet all we hear from the DPP is the simplistic accusation "Price Hike Cabinet." Is the DPP really advocating a continued freeze on gasoline prices? The former DPP government is responsible for today's gasoline prices. The Liu Cabinet has been in office only seven days. Yet the DPP is already screaming "Step down!" Have they forgotten the lengths to which they went to cover up Chen Shui-bian regime corruption so that the DPP would not have to step down?
When Tsai Ing-wen said that "the DPP will be an opposition party with experience in governance," she seemed to be implying that when the DPP reverted to opposition party status, it would no longer oppose the ruling party out of sheer contrariness. For example, Beijing is willing to give Taipei more diplomatic breathing space. It is giving priority to Taipei's participation in the WHO. Yet the DPP's first reaction is to oppose the use of the term "Chinese Taipei." If the DPP was merely playing "Bad Cop" to the KMT's "Good Cop," that would be one thing. But does the DPP really want to say no to everything? Does the DPP intend to oppose the use of the term "Chinese Taipei" while participating in the IOC, APEC and the WTO as well? The name "Taiwan Post" will be changed back to the "Republic of China Post." The DPP refers to this as "de-Taiwanization," even as it denies that it is engaged in "de-Sinicization." This led Premier Liu Chao-hsuan to respond that "the Republic of China is Taiwan." Why doesn't the DPP return to its former position that "Taiwan is the Republic of China?" It has no need to oppose the Republic of China Post. The Ma administration hopes to "increase domestic demand." The DPP said that would trigger inflation. Does that mean in order to prevent inflation one should not increase domestic demand? Does that mean preventing an increase in domestic demand will stop inflation?
Taiwan has undergone a "second change of ruling parties." Its biggest political benefit is that the ruling KMT is now a ruling party that knows what it is like to be out of power. Conversely, the opposition DPP is now an opposition party that knows what it is like to be in power. This trial by fire has enabled the KMT to make a breakthrough, to conclude that "Taiwan is the Republic of China" and the "Republic of China is Taiwan." Being out of power has motivated the KMT to aspire to clean and competent governance. These are painful lessons the KMT learned during its eight years out of office. By contrast, the DPP still insists that referring to the post office as the "Republic of China Post" amounts to "de-Taiwanization." The DPP still insists that the "Southern Front" is a state secret that may not be declassified. Is this what the DPP considers conduct befitting "an opposition party with experience in governance?"
Eight years ago, as chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Tsai Ing-wen denied the existence of the 1992 Consensus. This set the tone for the ruling DPP's cross-strait policy. It also painted the DPP into a corner. The result? Under pressure from Washington and Beijing the DPP's cross-strait policy slammed head on into a brick wall. This was a major reason it lost power. Yet today Tsai Ing-wen is declaring that if the Democratic Progressive Party were to regain office, it would still not accept the 1992 Consensus. In effect the DPP's cross-strait position has gone from yesterday's "There never was any 1992 Consensus" to today's "Although a consensus was reached in 1992, we oppose the 1992 Consensus." Indeed, the correlation between the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations has been reinforced. Is the mission of the Democratic Progressive Party, now in the opposition, to declare that if it regains office it will not accept the 1992 Consensus?
After ten days back in the political opposition, the DPP must be alert. Given the cross-strait warming trend, if the DPP persists in rejecting and objecting to the 1992 Consensus, to participation in the WHO under the name Chinese Taipei, to missile reductions, to direct air passenger and air cargo links, the DPP may well paint itself into a corner, again. Would that really be a smart move on the part of "an opposition party with experience in governance?"
民進黨再執政後要否定九二共識？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.03 03:01 am
民進黨主席蔡英文說：「民進黨將是一個有執政經驗的反對黨。」這句話的意思也許是說：民進黨已有八年執政經驗，對於執政的成敗得失已有體悟；因此，民進黨如今再度變成反對黨，將以「過去的執政經驗」作為反對與制衡的憑藉，從而可以作一個「有執政高度」的反對黨。
馬政府上台，提供了民進黨許多可以發揮的題材，如吳胡會及汽油漲價等；如今這些議題的震盪暫已告一段落，此刻不但是馬政府應當回頭清理其執政首役戰場的時候，也是民進黨可以回頭檢討其重作馮婦「反對黨初體驗」的時刻。
國民黨上台，民進黨下野；主客易位，第一次交手的兩大議題，吳胡會及汽油漲價，卻皆在收拾民進黨留下的爛攤子。民進黨處理這類議題，正是應當表現其「有執政經驗的反對黨」的時機，但事實卻似乎不然。
先談吳胡會。自博鰲論壇胡蕭會，至連胡會，至吳胡會，可謂皆在修補民進黨執政八年所造成的兩岸創傷；甚至可說，其實是民進黨一手促成了一個半月內蕭、連、吳三人密集與胡錦濤會面的「歷史機遇」。但是，迄未見民進黨以「有執政經驗」的高度對此一變局提出解讀。接著，一個月後，七月四日，周末包機就要載著陸客來台，卻只聞民進黨說「為什麼只稱馬先生，不稱馬總統」、「為什麼只說中華民族，不說中華民國」，難道這些就是「有執政經驗的反對黨」的極致表現？
再談汽油漲價。劉內閣處理這次漲價，確實有欠周全。但是，既然是「有執政經驗的反對黨」，似乎先應想到自己「執政」時「凍漲」的遺害，再決定當如何「反對」；如今卻以一句「漲價內閣」就概括一切，難道民進黨能主張油價繼續「凍漲」？何況，民進黨前政府對油價亦有責任，在劉內閣就任僅七天之時，民進黨一下子就將口號喊到「下台」的高度，有沒有想過當年自己是如何包庇貪腐無狀的陳水扁不下台？
蔡英文點出「民進黨將是一個有執政經驗的反對黨」，似乎意指民進黨再度作為反對黨，不應再有過去那種「為反對而反對」的民粹心態。例如，據稱北京願意鬆解台灣的外交參與，而謂將首先考慮ＷＨＯ；但民進黨的第一個反應卻是，反對以「中華台北」名義加入；這若是欲與政府扮演黑白臉也就罷了，但難道真要反對到底？更是否將一併反對以「中華台北」參加奧會、ＡＰＥＣ與ＷＴＯ？又如，台灣郵政將改回中華民國郵政，民進黨竟稱這是「去台灣化」，卻不說民進黨是「去中華民國化」；閣揆劉兆玄因此在答詢時稱「中華民國就是台灣」，而民進黨何不亦回復到「台灣就是中華民國」的立場，即不必反對「中華民國郵政」。再如，馬政府欲「擴大內需」，民進黨說將引發「通貨膨脹」；但是，為了防止通貨膨脹就不應擴大內需嗎？或者停止擴大內需就能停息通貨膨脹？
台灣經歷「二次政黨輪替」，其中最大的政治效益應是：重新執政的國民黨成了「有在野經驗的執政黨」，重新下野的民進黨也成了「有執政經驗的反對黨」。國民黨經此試煉，才有「台灣在語義上就是中華民國」及「中華民國就是台灣」的突破，也才有廉能政治的自期自勉，這些應皆是得自八年在野的痛苦教訓；相對而言，民進黨如果仍將「中華民國郵政」指為「去台灣化」，又仍堅持「南線專案」為不可解密的國家機密，則怎麼可能表現出「有執政經驗的反對黨」的高度？
八年前，擔任陸委會主委的蔡英文否認有「九二共識」存在，將民進黨政府的兩岸政策定了調，也使民進黨困在牆角，終致民進黨的兩岸政策在「台／美／中」皆推車撞壁，成為其失去政權的主因之一；如今，蔡英文卻說，如果民進黨再度執政，可以不接受「九二共識」；這使得民進黨的兩岸論述，從過去的「沒有九二共識」，轉變成今日的「雖有九二共識，但仍反對九二共識」。誠然，「九二共識」與「一中各表」的聯結尚待加強；但難道民進黨現今在野的使命，就是為了宣示在執政後不接受「九二共識」嗎？
經歷這十餘日「反對黨初體驗」，民進黨須有警覺，倘若只是反對或不接受「九二共識」、「中華台北ＷＨＯ」、「飛彈撤減」、「先客後貨」，恐怕會在「兩岸熱和」中再度將民進黨困在牆角，那豈是「有執政經驗的反對黨」的明智抉擇？
Monday, June 2, 2008
Will the Ministry of Justice Conduct a Real Investigation? The World is Watching.
Will the Ministry of Justice Conduct a Real Investigation? The World is Watching.
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 2, 2008
The number and magnitude of controversies the Attorney General is embroiled boggles the mind. Public Prosecutor Eric Chen has been assigned to prosecute the State Confidential Expenses Case. Chen said, "The Attorney General should create a police cordon around local prosecutors, shielding them from all political pressure." Eric Chen made this statement early last year. Attorney-General Chen Tsung-ming's "banquet scandals" had just made headlines at the time. First Chen Tsung-ming attended a post New Year's party at the home of former President Chen Shui-bian's personal physician, Huang Fang-yen. Then he attended a dinner party at Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng's house.
One year later, Chen Tsung-ming is again in the spotlight. This time, the problem is far more serious. This time the problem is not merely the appearance of impropriety. The Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office is in charge of prosecuting the Thai workers exploitation case. In the second instance it indicted Public Prosecutor Tsai Kuo-jen. It introduced evidence in court showing that even though during the first instance Chen Tsung-ming lacked evidence, he nevertheless ordered prosecutor Wang Bang-an to indict some people merely to appease public anger. The word handed down was "Attorney-General Chen Tsung-ming wants this taken care of." Tsai Kuo-jen presented evidence suggesting that "the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office engaged in selective prosecution in the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal." During his prosecution of the Thai workers exploitation scandal, Tsai said that the four lower echelon civil servants indicted had neither the intent nor the authority to profit from the case. "Unless of course their superiors shut their eyes and rubber-stamped the documents. If we are serious about prosecuting this case, the person we should be prosecuting is Chen Chu," he said.
Tsai Kuo-jen's remarks touched off a bombshell and led to widespread speculation. First, Tsai Kuo-jen made his accusations publicly, in court. He did not "drop the dime" on others anonymously. During his deposition he even demanded that the court reporter take down his testimony verbatim. He was mentally prepared, knowing his words and deeds would provoke major turmoil. Second, as we all know, the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal has many facets. The Thai worker riots case and the Thai workers exploitation scandal are merely two of them. While comparing the riot to the scandal, Tsai said that the four lower echelon civil servants were scapegoats, victims of selective prosecution. Third, even more importantly, Tsai said, without the slightest hesitation, "If we are serious about prosecuting this case, the person we should be prosecuting is Chen Chu." Everything is linked. Tsai Kuo-jen's remarks touched off a storm of controversy. Not only did Chen Tsung-ming order prosecutors to mollify the public by throwing four fall guys to the wolves. More to the point, what was the purpose of these sacrificial offerings? Who was being protected by these sacrificial offerings? Chen Tsung-ming? Or people behind Chen Tsung-ming even higher up the ladder? Let's not forget that when the Thai workers exploitation scandal first broke, Chen Chu lamented that "powerful people" were behind the scandal. Unfortunately, during the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's course of investigation, no one had the courage or ambition to reveal who these "powerful people" were. The rest is irrelevant.
Chen Tsung-ming said that according to his recollection it was already late in the game when he took over the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit case. But Chen Tsung-ming was Chief Prosecutor of the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office at the time. Whistleblowers had already come forth on the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal and other scandals, long before they made headlines. The Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office had already swept these cases under the rug. Had it not been for the Thai worker riots, the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal would have remained a rock dropped into the ocean. Nor was the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal not an isolated case. A string of such scandals took place in Kaohsiung. Have we forgotten Lo Chien-hsun, who was transferred to the Internal Affairs Department of the Coast Guard Administration? Before leaving the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office, he turned his case files over to the Special Investigative Unit. He specifically underscored former Kaohsiung Mayor Frank Hsieh's involvement in the scandals. The Democratic Progressive Party was holding its presidential primaries at the time. Tsai's expose created quite a stir. In the end however, it turned out to be yet another case of "Plenty of thunder but little rain." We still don't know whether the Special Investigative Unit has any intention of proceeding with the case.
When Tsai Kuo-jen touched off his bombshell, Chen Tsung-ming responded by indicting four scapegoats. Tsai refused to speak again. Chen Tsung-ming on the other hand, was suddenly in a panic, and wanted Wang Bang-an report to him, to declare that he never issued any such orders to Tsai Kuo-jen. Is Chen Tsung-ming serious? How many lower echelon prosecutors have the guts to submit a report to the Attorney General, saying "Yes, you were the one who phoned me, ordering me to indict so and so?" Because of this case, Wang Ching-feng, the new Minister of Justice, found herself under enormous pressure during her first interpolation by the Legislative Yuan. She was saddened that this case had utterly discredited public prosecutors in the eyes of the public. She immediately ordered the formation of an ad hoc group to investigate and produce a report within two weeks, no punches pulled.
Only last year, in response to Chen Tsung-ming's banquets scandal, the Ministry of Justice made a big show of "investigating." Many have forgotten that at the time Huang Fang-yen said he and Chen Tsung-ming were quite familiar with each other. Chen Tsung-ming on the other hand said he and Huang Fang-yen were not at all familiar with each other. Did anyone bother to ask why Chen Tsung-ming would attend a post New Years party at the home of someone with whom he was not at all familiar? His dinner party with Wang Jin-pyng was even more revealing. Among the guests were business community "witnesses" to the State Security Expense Accounts scandals. So were five other public prosecutors. So were several independent legislators who were entangled in lawsuits. Eric Chen said "Even assuming you did not know in advance that these people would be present, as soon as you walked in the door and saw them you should have had the determination and courage to turn around and walk out!" The Prosecutorial Reform Commission said that if it were to happen again, it would not rule out defying Chen Tsung-ming's orders and promoting mechanisms for the Attorney-General's withdrawal. Because prosecutors have been unable to legally specify that prosecutors may not wine and dine individuals involved in their cases, this case will probably go nowhere.
Tsai Kuo-jen dropped a bombshell when he accused Chen Tsung-ming of engaging in selective prosecutions. Should this be considered a case of "Here we go again?" Will the Ministry of Justice report, like past reports, evade real problems by fixating on trivialities? Will it engage in cover ups? Wang Ching-feng is watching. The entire nation is watching. They see public prosecutors who lack the determination and courage to turn around and walk away from corrupt officials and businessmen. Just how many public prosecutors retain their spirit of independence? Just how many public prosecutors have the guts to "Just say no!" to special interests?
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.06.02
這回法務部要怎麼調查？舉國都在看
中時社論
真的難以想像，為什麼檢察總長的爭議可以這麼大、這麼多！國務機要費承辦檢察官陳瑞仁曾經說過一句話：「檢察總長應該為基層檢察官拉起一道封鎖線，讓所有的政治勢力不得其門而入。」陳瑞仁說這話是去年上半年，檢察總長陳聰明才鬧出夜宴風波，先是到前總統陳水扁御醫黃芳彥家中喝春酒，再是到立法院長王金平官邸聚餐。
時隔一年，陳聰明又出鋒頭了，這一回，遠遠比吃頓飯要嚴重得多。雄檢承辦引進泰勞涉嫌圖利案的二審公訴檢察官蔡國禎，竟在庭上引據承辦泰勞暴動案的一審檢察官王邦安的說法指陳，雖然證據不足，但是為平息輿論，要找幾個人起訴，「這是陳聰明檢察長的意思。」蔡國禎並據此申論「高雄地檢署對於高捷案，有很多都是選擇性辦案」，在他自己擔任公訴檢察官的引進泰勞案，他則說，被起訴的四名基層公務員，既無圖利犯意，更無夠大的權限，「除非他們的長官都瞎了眼睛蓋章，真要偵辦，應該要辦陳菊。」
蔡國禎一番話，立刻引爆爭議，造成各方聯想。第一，蔡國禎是在庭上公開指控，而非私下不具名爆料，庭訊陳述時，他甚至要書記官逐字逐句紀錄在卷，對自己言行會造成多大風暴，顯早有心理準備；第二，眾所周知，高捷案所涉甚多，泰勞暴動案和引進泰勞圖利案，只是其中兩樁，蔡以暴動案比擬圖利案，認為四名基層公務員是「選擇性辦案」下的犧牲品；第三，更重要的，蔡毫不隱諱地說「真要偵辦，應該要辦陳菊。」環環相扣，蔡國禎一番話掀起的風波，不只是陳聰明要求承辦檢察官為平息輿論而起訴；更嚴重的，蔡口中「選擇性辦案」到底犧牲了誰？又保護了誰？主導選擇性辦案的是陳聰明？還是陳聰明背後還有高人？不要忘了，泰勞案爆發之初，陳菊曾感慨說到「有力人士」，遺憾的是，雄檢偵辦過程中，從沒有勇氣或企圖心了解「有力人士」到底是誰？遑論其他。
陳聰明回溯高捷案澄清自己接手時間很晚，但是，陳聰明時任高雄地檢署檢察長則是不爭的事實；而高捷諸多弊案，早在爆發前即經人檢舉，卻也是雄檢偵辦且結案在先。要不是鬧出了泰勞暴動案，高捷諸案早就石沉大海。不只高捷案，發生在高雄的若干政治獻金案，亦復如是，如果大家不健忘的話，應該還記得調任海巡署政風室的羅建勛檢察官，在離開雄檢前移交卷案到特偵組，還特別點名前高雄市長謝長廷在該案中扮演的角色，時值總統大選民進黨內初選之際，鬧得沸沸揚揚，同樣不了了之，迄今不知特偵組到底辦是不辦？
蔡國禎引爆陳聰明指導起訴這顆大炸彈後，不肯再對外說話，倒是陳聰明急乎乎地要王邦安上了報告給他，說明自己並未對蔡國禎說過類似的話。這不是開玩笑嗎？哪個基層檢察官有這個熊心豹子膽，上份報告給直屬檢察總長說：沒錯，就是你打電話給我，要我起訴一、二人？為了此案，新任法務部長王清峰首次列席立法院備詢就飽受壓力，她難過地說，此案讓檢察官形象「跌到谷底」，並立刻指示組成專案小組調查，要在兩周內交出報告，絕不寬貸！
也不過就在去年，為了陳聰明夜宴，法務部亦曾大張旗鼓「調查」，很多人都忘了，當時，黃芳彥說和陳聰明很熟，陳聰明卻說和黃芳彥不熟，沒人追究陳聰明到不熟的人家中喝春酒幹嘛？至於與王金平聚餐扯得就更多了，不但有國務費案中列為發票報銷「證人」的商界人士，還有其他五名檢察官，以及猶有官司纏身的無黨籍立委。雖然，陳瑞仁還是說了句極其沉痛的話「即使你事前不知有這些人在座，進門看到這些人，也應該有掉頭就走的決心和勇氣！」檢改會甚至說，如果再發生，不排除抵制陳聰明，並推動檢察總長退場機制。或許因為法無明定檢察官不能吃飯應酬，此案不了了之。
蔡國禎引爆的陳聰明選擇性起訴，算不算是「再發生」？法務部這次調查報告會不會像過去的調查報告般，蜻蜓點水，避重就輕，甚至官官相護？不只王清峰在看，舉國都張大了眼睛在看：見官商卻無決心與勇氣掉調頭就走的檢察系統，到底還剩下幾分獨立的精神，不為特權服務！
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 2, 2008
The number and magnitude of controversies the Attorney General is embroiled boggles the mind. Public Prosecutor Eric Chen has been assigned to prosecute the State Confidential Expenses Case. Chen said, "The Attorney General should create a police cordon around local prosecutors, shielding them from all political pressure." Eric Chen made this statement early last year. Attorney-General Chen Tsung-ming's "banquet scandals" had just made headlines at the time. First Chen Tsung-ming attended a post New Year's party at the home of former President Chen Shui-bian's personal physician, Huang Fang-yen. Then he attended a dinner party at Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng's house.
One year later, Chen Tsung-ming is again in the spotlight. This time, the problem is far more serious. This time the problem is not merely the appearance of impropriety. The Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office is in charge of prosecuting the Thai workers exploitation case. In the second instance it indicted Public Prosecutor Tsai Kuo-jen. It introduced evidence in court showing that even though during the first instance Chen Tsung-ming lacked evidence, he nevertheless ordered prosecutor Wang Bang-an to indict some people merely to appease public anger. The word handed down was "Attorney-General Chen Tsung-ming wants this taken care of." Tsai Kuo-jen presented evidence suggesting that "the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office engaged in selective prosecution in the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal." During his prosecution of the Thai workers exploitation scandal, Tsai said that the four lower echelon civil servants indicted had neither the intent nor the authority to profit from the case. "Unless of course their superiors shut their eyes and rubber-stamped the documents. If we are serious about prosecuting this case, the person we should be prosecuting is Chen Chu," he said.
Tsai Kuo-jen's remarks touched off a bombshell and led to widespread speculation. First, Tsai Kuo-jen made his accusations publicly, in court. He did not "drop the dime" on others anonymously. During his deposition he even demanded that the court reporter take down his testimony verbatim. He was mentally prepared, knowing his words and deeds would provoke major turmoil. Second, as we all know, the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal has many facets. The Thai worker riots case and the Thai workers exploitation scandal are merely two of them. While comparing the riot to the scandal, Tsai said that the four lower echelon civil servants were scapegoats, victims of selective prosecution. Third, even more importantly, Tsai said, without the slightest hesitation, "If we are serious about prosecuting this case, the person we should be prosecuting is Chen Chu." Everything is linked. Tsai Kuo-jen's remarks touched off a storm of controversy. Not only did Chen Tsung-ming order prosecutors to mollify the public by throwing four fall guys to the wolves. More to the point, what was the purpose of these sacrificial offerings? Who was being protected by these sacrificial offerings? Chen Tsung-ming? Or people behind Chen Tsung-ming even higher up the ladder? Let's not forget that when the Thai workers exploitation scandal first broke, Chen Chu lamented that "powerful people" were behind the scandal. Unfortunately, during the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's course of investigation, no one had the courage or ambition to reveal who these "powerful people" were. The rest is irrelevant.
Chen Tsung-ming said that according to his recollection it was already late in the game when he took over the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit case. But Chen Tsung-ming was Chief Prosecutor of the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office at the time. Whistleblowers had already come forth on the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal and other scandals, long before they made headlines. The Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office had already swept these cases under the rug. Had it not been for the Thai worker riots, the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal would have remained a rock dropped into the ocean. Nor was the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal not an isolated case. A string of such scandals took place in Kaohsiung. Have we forgotten Lo Chien-hsun, who was transferred to the Internal Affairs Department of the Coast Guard Administration? Before leaving the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office, he turned his case files over to the Special Investigative Unit. He specifically underscored former Kaohsiung Mayor Frank Hsieh's involvement in the scandals. The Democratic Progressive Party was holding its presidential primaries at the time. Tsai's expose created quite a stir. In the end however, it turned out to be yet another case of "Plenty of thunder but little rain." We still don't know whether the Special Investigative Unit has any intention of proceeding with the case.
When Tsai Kuo-jen touched off his bombshell, Chen Tsung-ming responded by indicting four scapegoats. Tsai refused to speak again. Chen Tsung-ming on the other hand, was suddenly in a panic, and wanted Wang Bang-an report to him, to declare that he never issued any such orders to Tsai Kuo-jen. Is Chen Tsung-ming serious? How many lower echelon prosecutors have the guts to submit a report to the Attorney General, saying "Yes, you were the one who phoned me, ordering me to indict so and so?" Because of this case, Wang Ching-feng, the new Minister of Justice, found herself under enormous pressure during her first interpolation by the Legislative Yuan. She was saddened that this case had utterly discredited public prosecutors in the eyes of the public. She immediately ordered the formation of an ad hoc group to investigate and produce a report within two weeks, no punches pulled.
Only last year, in response to Chen Tsung-ming's banquets scandal, the Ministry of Justice made a big show of "investigating." Many have forgotten that at the time Huang Fang-yen said he and Chen Tsung-ming were quite familiar with each other. Chen Tsung-ming on the other hand said he and Huang Fang-yen were not at all familiar with each other. Did anyone bother to ask why Chen Tsung-ming would attend a post New Years party at the home of someone with whom he was not at all familiar? His dinner party with Wang Jin-pyng was even more revealing. Among the guests were business community "witnesses" to the State Security Expense Accounts scandals. So were five other public prosecutors. So were several independent legislators who were entangled in lawsuits. Eric Chen said "Even assuming you did not know in advance that these people would be present, as soon as you walked in the door and saw them you should have had the determination and courage to turn around and walk out!" The Prosecutorial Reform Commission said that if it were to happen again, it would not rule out defying Chen Tsung-ming's orders and promoting mechanisms for the Attorney-General's withdrawal. Because prosecutors have been unable to legally specify that prosecutors may not wine and dine individuals involved in their cases, this case will probably go nowhere.
Tsai Kuo-jen dropped a bombshell when he accused Chen Tsung-ming of engaging in selective prosecutions. Should this be considered a case of "Here we go again?" Will the Ministry of Justice report, like past reports, evade real problems by fixating on trivialities? Will it engage in cover ups? Wang Ching-feng is watching. The entire nation is watching. They see public prosecutors who lack the determination and courage to turn around and walk away from corrupt officials and businessmen. Just how many public prosecutors retain their spirit of independence? Just how many public prosecutors have the guts to "Just say no!" to special interests?
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.06.02
這回法務部要怎麼調查？舉國都在看
中時社論
真的難以想像，為什麼檢察總長的爭議可以這麼大、這麼多！國務機要費承辦檢察官陳瑞仁曾經說過一句話：「檢察總長應該為基層檢察官拉起一道封鎖線，讓所有的政治勢力不得其門而入。」陳瑞仁說這話是去年上半年，檢察總長陳聰明才鬧出夜宴風波，先是到前總統陳水扁御醫黃芳彥家中喝春酒，再是到立法院長王金平官邸聚餐。
時隔一年，陳聰明又出鋒頭了，這一回，遠遠比吃頓飯要嚴重得多。雄檢承辦引進泰勞涉嫌圖利案的二審公訴檢察官蔡國禎，竟在庭上引據承辦泰勞暴動案的一審檢察官王邦安的說法指陳，雖然證據不足，但是為平息輿論，要找幾個人起訴，「這是陳聰明檢察長的意思。」蔡國禎並據此申論「高雄地檢署對於高捷案，有很多都是選擇性辦案」，在他自己擔任公訴檢察官的引進泰勞案，他則說，被起訴的四名基層公務員，既無圖利犯意，更無夠大的權限，「除非他們的長官都瞎了眼睛蓋章，真要偵辦，應該要辦陳菊。」
蔡國禎一番話，立刻引爆爭議，造成各方聯想。第一，蔡國禎是在庭上公開指控，而非私下不具名爆料，庭訊陳述時，他甚至要書記官逐字逐句紀錄在卷，對自己言行會造成多大風暴，顯早有心理準備；第二，眾所周知，高捷案所涉甚多，泰勞暴動案和引進泰勞圖利案，只是其中兩樁，蔡以暴動案比擬圖利案，認為四名基層公務員是「選擇性辦案」下的犧牲品；第三，更重要的，蔡毫不隱諱地說「真要偵辦，應該要辦陳菊。」環環相扣，蔡國禎一番話掀起的風波，不只是陳聰明要求承辦檢察官為平息輿論而起訴；更嚴重的，蔡口中「選擇性辦案」到底犧牲了誰？又保護了誰？主導選擇性辦案的是陳聰明？還是陳聰明背後還有高人？不要忘了，泰勞案爆發之初，陳菊曾感慨說到「有力人士」，遺憾的是，雄檢偵辦過程中，從沒有勇氣或企圖心了解「有力人士」到底是誰？遑論其他。
陳聰明回溯高捷案澄清自己接手時間很晚，但是，陳聰明時任高雄地檢署檢察長則是不爭的事實；而高捷諸多弊案，早在爆發前即經人檢舉，卻也是雄檢偵辦且結案在先。要不是鬧出了泰勞暴動案，高捷諸案早就石沉大海。不只高捷案，發生在高雄的若干政治獻金案，亦復如是，如果大家不健忘的話，應該還記得調任海巡署政風室的羅建勛檢察官，在離開雄檢前移交卷案到特偵組，還特別點名前高雄市長謝長廷在該案中扮演的角色，時值總統大選民進黨內初選之際，鬧得沸沸揚揚，同樣不了了之，迄今不知特偵組到底辦是不辦？
蔡國禎引爆陳聰明指導起訴這顆大炸彈後，不肯再對外說話，倒是陳聰明急乎乎地要王邦安上了報告給他，說明自己並未對蔡國禎說過類似的話。這不是開玩笑嗎？哪個基層檢察官有這個熊心豹子膽，上份報告給直屬檢察總長說：沒錯，就是你打電話給我，要我起訴一、二人？為了此案，新任法務部長王清峰首次列席立法院備詢就飽受壓力，她難過地說，此案讓檢察官形象「跌到谷底」，並立刻指示組成專案小組調查，要在兩周內交出報告，絕不寬貸！
也不過就在去年，為了陳聰明夜宴，法務部亦曾大張旗鼓「調查」，很多人都忘了，當時，黃芳彥說和陳聰明很熟，陳聰明卻說和黃芳彥不熟，沒人追究陳聰明到不熟的人家中喝春酒幹嘛？至於與王金平聚餐扯得就更多了，不但有國務費案中列為發票報銷「證人」的商界人士，還有其他五名檢察官，以及猶有官司纏身的無黨籍立委。雖然，陳瑞仁還是說了句極其沉痛的話「即使你事前不知有這些人在座，進門看到這些人，也應該有掉頭就走的決心和勇氣！」檢改會甚至說，如果再發生，不排除抵制陳聰明，並推動檢察總長退場機制。或許因為法無明定檢察官不能吃飯應酬，此案不了了之。
蔡國禎引爆的陳聰明選擇性起訴，算不算是「再發生」？法務部這次調查報告會不會像過去的調查報告般，蜻蜓點水，避重就輕，甚至官官相護？不只王清峰在看，舉國都張大了眼睛在看：見官商卻無決心與勇氣掉調頭就走的檢察系統，到底還剩下幾分獨立的精神，不為特權服務！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)